IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9910 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.J.ABRAHAM, S/O.JACOB, AGED 42 YEARS, MADAPPILLIYIL HOUSE, CHULLYYODE P.O., SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA MR.N.A.SHAFEEK MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 9910 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering his application for renewal of the permit of his stage carriage for the reason that a No Objection Certificate has not been issued by the third respondent- financier. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-12B.8523 with financial assistance from the third respondent. The name of the third respondent is endorsed in his R.C book, as can be seen from Ext.P1. The permit of the vehicle expired on 16.1.2010 and therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for renewal of the same before the second respondent. He complains that his application has not been considered for the reason that he has not produced an NOC from the third respondent who is the financier. 3. The petitioner submits that he has paid off the entire amount that was availed by him as loan from the third respondent. Therefore, he issued a notice requesting for the issue of an NOC by the third respondent. However, the third respondent has replied by WPC 9910/2010 2 Ext.P5 stating that the finance was arranged by Messrs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd and therefore they have to be addressed for the issue of an NOC. According to the petitioner, he has no dealings with the said company. He had taken loan from the third respondent company and therefore, the NOC has to be issued by the third respondent. 4. It has been held by this Court that the authorities cannot refuse to renew a permit for the sole reason that an NOC has not been issued by the financier. In circumstances where the financier refuses to issue an NOC, the authorities have to follow the procedure that is laid down by Section 51(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). A similar situation had arisen in the case of Bindhu v. RTA, Kottayam {2009(3) KLT 525}. After having considered the scope of Section 51 of the Act and the status of a person who has supplied the refinance in respect of the vehicle this Court has observed as follows:- “12. May be by reason of any event subsequent to the actual registration of the vehicle, there has been a change in the contractual relationship between the original registered owner and the financier. May be the financier has availed of a re-financing facility from another person. May be, as is alleged to have WPC 9910/2010 3 happened in the instant case, the additional third respondent has stepped into the shoes of the second respondent on payment of the amounts due from the petitioner to the financier. But these are aspects which could be resolved only under the auspices of a contract between the parties and in terms of the said contract.” xxxx xxxx xxxx 13. In the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the submission of the additional third respondent that it is entitled to be treated as having stepped into the shoes of the second respondent and therefore, entitled to assert the status of the second respondent as a financier in relation to the vehicle in question. May be the second respondent has no objection to the third respondent asserting to such a status. May be the second respondent would even concede the right of subrogation in favour of the third respondent. May be the petitioner herself had earlier entered into a tri-partite agreement with respondents 2and 3. But this will not enable the third respondent to claim the status of a financier in the context of S.51 of the Act. Right thereunder cannot be claimed by anyone other than the person with whom, existence of an agreement is endorsed in terms of S.51(1) of the Act. Consequently, the status of the financier, discernible in favour of the second respondent, cannot WPC 9910/2010 4 be attributed to the additional third respondent. Of course, it would be open to the third respondent, nevertheless to move the competent Civil Court for appropriate declaratory relief with the registering authority on the party array.” 5. I am in respectful agreement with the above view. The registering the authority has therefore to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. Therefore, the refusal of the authorities to renew the permit of the petitioner is without any justification. 6. In the result this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to proceed with the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner by following the procedure stipulated by Section 51(9) of the Act after notice to the third respondent also. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 9910/2010 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: