IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 11379 of 2010(V) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED,S/O.IBRAHIM,11/6, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,KANGARAPPADY,KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. 4. PAREETHU KUNJU,THURUTHEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI.P.O,KAKKANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11379 of 2010(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF R.C.BOOK OF KL 0L2466. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2007 TO 31.3.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2008 TO 31.3.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF R.C.BOOK OF KL07 AA2520. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18/1/2010. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 5/2/2010. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESWPONDENT DATED 9/2/2010. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12/3/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.06.2005. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE TKS C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11379 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 13th December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and to declare that the objections raised by the third respondent are unsustainable and that the production of `No Objection Certificate' as per the said letter is absolutely unnecessary. The further prayers of the petitioner are as hereunder:- “b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st and 2nd respondents to allow Ext.P8 application for replacement of the old model vehicle covered by Ext.P1 registration certificate by the latest model vehicle covered by Ext.P6 registration certificate. c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to issue no objection certificate to the 2nd respondent for replacement of the old model vehicle covered by Ext.P1 registration certificate by the latest model vehicle covered by Ext.P6 registration certificate within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.” The short facts required for the disposal of this case are as follows:- The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-7. L. 2466. Permit in respect of the same also stands in the name of the petitioner. With the aforesaid stage carriage the petitioner had been operating service on the route Kakkanad - WP(C).No.11379/2010 2 Kumbalangi. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to garage the said vehicle and as required under the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner has submitted `G' Form on 1.4.2007. In the `G' Form the petitioner has given the details regarding the place wherein the stage carriage was garaged. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle would attain the maximum age limit prescribed under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules in January, 2011 and thereafter, it could not be operated on the route. Taking note of the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application for replacement of the vehicle with a later 2000 model vehicle. Ext.P8 is the application submitted for that purpose. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9 notice directing him to produce a `No Objection Certificate' from the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam in respect of transfer of ownership of the aforesaid vehicle. Pursuant to receipt of the same the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 application. The contention raised thereunder is that replacement of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL- 7. L. 2466 would not in any way, cause any prejudice to any person or to any authority as there is no change of ownership. The petitioner submits that he is prepared to give an undertaking before the authorities that the ownership of the vehicle KL-7. L.2466 would not be changed and WP(C).No.11379/2010 3 that the said vehicle which is garaged, as per item No.3 in Ext.P3, would not be removed from the aforesaid place, without permission from the competent authority. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition jointly, by respondents 1 and 2 and a separate counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. Essentially, the contention in the counter affidavits is that in view of the involvement of the vehicle in question in Vigilance Case No. 1/2005/SCE the request of the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle would prejudice the prospects of the investigation. Therefore, the respondents virtually attempted to support and sustain the stand taken by them in Ext.P9. On a conspectus of the factual position obtained in this case I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions on merits at this stage. A perusal of the contentions raised in the counter affidavits would reveal that the concern of the respondents is that replacement of the vehicle would prejudice the prospects of investigation in the aforementioned vigilance case. In other words, according to them, in case permission is granted to replace the aforesaid vehicle, the petitioner may take the vehicle from the place wherein it is presently garaged and may also transfer its ownership. Since that be the apprehension of the respondents, in case WP(C).No.11379/2010 4 the petitioner gives an undertaking before the authority, in writing, that he would not transfer the ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7. L. 2466 for which he is the registered owner and that he would not remove the vehicle from the place wherein it is presently garaged without the permission of the respondents. I am of the view that the application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle as per Ext.P8 can be directed to be considered. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the petitioner undertakes before the authority to the effect that he would not transfer the ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7. L. 2466 to which he is the registered owner and also that he would not remove the vehicle from the place wherein it is presently garaged, without permission from the respondents, the first respondent shall consider Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS