IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13446 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINDU, W/O. P.B.MADU, PANICKASSERIYIL HOUSE, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI (R1) BY SC SRI.R.S.KALKURA (R2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.13446 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS VEHICLE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, ALAPPUZHA RELATING TO VEHICLE NO. KL-4R-8815. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN W.P.(C) NO. 2979/2011 DATED 21.3.2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.4.2011 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.4.2011 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER EVIDENCING DESPATCH OF EXT.P4 COMMUNICATION ON 27.4.2011 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.4.2011 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13446 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-4R-8815 which stands hypothecated with the second respondent. The goods carriage permit issued in respect of the said vehicle was valid till 28.3.2010. Though the petitioner applied for renewal, as he did not produce a No Objection Certificate from the financier, the said application was returned. He thereafter filed W.P. (C) No.2979 of 2011 in this Court contending that he had submitted a letter dated 18.1.2011 to the financier (the second respondent) requesting for the issue of a No Objection Certificate, but the financier did not sent a reply to that letter, and therefore, the first respondent was bound to consider his application for renewal of the permit without insisting on the production of a No Objection Certificate in terms of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The second respondent resisted the writ petition contending inter alia that the petitioner did not apply for a No Objection Certificate. In view of the said contention, by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 21.3.2011, I dismissed the said writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the financier for a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner thereafter sent Ext.P3 letter dated 7.4.2011 to the second W.P.(C) No.13446 of 2011 2 respondent requesting for a No Objection Certificate. By Ext.P4 letter dated 20.4.2011, the second respondent informed the petitioner that unless he remits the total amount due as on 9.11.2008 and other charges, the No Objection Certificate cannot be issued. Hence this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to renew the permit without insisting on the production of a No Objection Certificate. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as the financier has failed to issue the No Objection Certificate within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, in view of the stipulation contained in sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the No Objection Certificate should be deemed to have been issued. 2. I heard Sri.Praveen Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri. M. Ajay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. Sub section (6) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) stipulates that the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of a permit under section 81 of the Act, make an application to the financier for the issue of a No Objection Certificate. Sub section (7) of W.P.(C) No.13446 of 2011 3 section 51 stipulates that where within 7 days of the receipt of a application under sub section (6), the financier does not refuse for reasons to be recorded in writing the certificate applied for and fails to issue the certificate and to communicate the reasons for refusal to the applicant within the period of 7 days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued. Sub-section (9) of section 51 inter alia states that in cases where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, the appropriate authority may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either renew or refuse to renew the permit. In the instant case, it is evident from Ext.P4 letter that within the time limit of 7 days stipulated in sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Act, the financier has refused to issue a No Objection Certificate for the reasons stated therein. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the certificate applied for by the petitioner should be deemed to have been issued. Such being the situation, the only course of action open to the petitioner is to seek a direction to the first respondent to consider his application for renewal of the goods carriage permit in terms of sub-section (9) of section 51 of the Act. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the application for renewal of the goods carriage permit issued in respect of motor vehicle W.P.(C) No.13446 of 2011 4 bearing registration No.No.KL-4R-8815, submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass orders thereon in the manner provided in sub-section (9) of section 51 of the Act expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. Needless to say, the first respondent shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and shall after orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner and the financier. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.