IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23535 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- S.P.SWAMYNATHAN S/O.PONNUSWAMI NO.3, T.M.COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, K.G.CHAVADI CHECK POST K.G.CHAVADI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23535/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 06/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.T.O. ERNAKULAM RELATING TO VEHICLE KL-7 AS 908. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 06/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.T.O.ERNAKULAM RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-A/AS 914. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 07/07/208 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR N.O.C. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.NO.10666/08 DTD. 26/04/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 23535 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3. 2. By Ext. P3, NOC sought for by the petitioner in respect of contract carriages bearing registration Nos. KL7/AS 908 and KL7/AS 914 to the RTO, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu has been rejected on the ground that the RTO, Coimbatore had intimated that since there is tax liability in respect of the vehicles, no transaction should be entertained without his no objection. 3. According to the petitioner, in relation to the tax liability of the previous owner in respect of the very same vehicles, he had approached the Madras High Court and obtained Ext. P4 judgment in W.P. 10666/08. It is stated that if the 1st respondent had given him notice before deciding Ext. P3 he would have produced this order in which case, NOC would have been issued. 4. The fact remains that Ext. P3 was issued without hearing W.P.(C) No. 23535 OF 2008 -2- the petitioner. If the 1st respondent had given him notice he should have produced Ext. P4 and contended for the position that he is entitled to get NOC. In view of this, I quash Ext. P3 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider his application with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-