IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35758 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJAN.M.K, S/O. KUNHOOTTY, 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2/347, MULLANKUNNUMMAL VEEDU, PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TATA MOROTS LTD. IST FLOOR, CYBERTECH HOUSE, PLOT NO. B 63/65, ROAD NO.21/34 J B SAWANT MARG, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE WEST - 400 604. 2. THE MANAGER, TATA MOTOR FINANCE, OPPOSITE RAMANANDA OIL MILL, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2. 3. ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.670 692 4. STATE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 35758 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of Tata 407 bearing No., KL 13P 1103. Second respondent is the financier of the said vehicle. According to the petitioner he had discharged the liability arising out of the said loan transaction. Thereupon, the petitioner requested the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the letter terminating the hypothecation agreement to get it endorsed in the registration certificate. Despite the receipt of the said request the respondents 1 and 2 did not respond to the same. In the said circumstances, he approached the 3rd respondent by filing Ext.P7 application with a request to renew the permit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not considering the request made by the petitioner as per Ext.P7 and insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from respondents 1 and 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Obviously, the petitioner has requested the financier to issue the letter showing termination WPC.No.35758/2010 : 2 : of the hypothecation, it is tune with the provisions under section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite the receipt of the same, according to the petitioner, the financier did not respond to the same. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the deeming provision Under Section 51(7) of the Act the 3rd respondent should have considered Ext.P7 application without insisting production of No Objection Certificate. Be that as it may, admittedly, Ext.P7 application is still pending before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is duty bound to pass orders thereon in terms of the provision under section 51 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also to the respondents 1 and 2. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge