IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10365 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ WRIT PETITIONER: ----------------------------- K.UMESHA, AGED 50, S/O.LATE KORAGA BELICHAPADA, SANDYA NIVAS, KUDLU VILLAGE, R.D.NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 671001. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD. *Addl. R3. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR SUN VIEW COMPLEX, NEAR NANTHOOR JUNCTION NANTHOOR, MANGALORE - 690065 *Addl.R3 impleaded as per order dated 09.06.2011 in I.A.No.6695 of 2011 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI ADV. SRI.PHILIP T. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: smt P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 10365 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, who was operating a stage carriage service on the route Kasaragod- Madhur-Perla-Malla Temple (via) Seethamgoli, Badiadka, Cherkala and Bovikana on the strength of a regular permit, that was valid till 04.03.2011. The stage carriage which the petitioner was operating on the route, was purchased by him after availing finance from the additional third respondent. In order to enable the petitioner to apply for renewal of the permit and replacement of vehicle, the petitioner sent Ext.P1 letter dated 16.11.2010 through his lawyer to the additional third respondent for the issue of a No Objection Certificate. Though the request in Ext.P1 was to issue a No Objection Certificate for replacement of the vehicle, in paragraph-3 thereof, it was stated that the permit is valid only up to 04.03.2011. It is stated that, no reply was received to Ext.P1 letter. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 08.02.2011 before the W.P.(C)No. 10365 OF 2011 2 Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod for renewal of the permit for a period of five years from 04.03.2011. The Regional Transport Authority considered the said application and on noticing that the No Objection Certificate from the financier has not been produced, sent Ext.P4 notice dated 22.02.2011 to the petitioner calling upon him to produce a No Objection Certificate from the financier. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P5 declaration before the Regional transport Officer, Kasaragod to the effect that though Ext.P1 notice was sent by registered post on 16.11.2010 and it was received by the financier on 20.11.2010, the financier has not issued the No Objection Certificate. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 30.3.2011 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to allow Ext.P2 application for renewal of the permit without insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from the financier. 2. This writ petition was filed without the financier on the party array. When the writ petition came up for admission, on noticing that fact, I directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects to Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, the learned standing counsel W.P.(C)No. 10365 OF 2011 3 appearing for the financier. The writ petition was ordered to be post on 04.04.2011 showing the name of the learned counsel for the financier also in the cause list. The writ petition thereafter came up before me for admission on 11.4.2011 and on 25.04.2011. On that day, it was adjourned by two weeks. In the meanwhile, on 07.04.2011, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6695 of 2011 to implead the financier as the additional third respondent. A copy thereof was also served on the learned standing counsel for the financier. I have, by order passed today, allowed the said application. 3. I heard Smt.R.Padmakumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the additional third respondent. The main contention of the petitioner is that as Ext.P1 notice containing all the relevant information had been served on the financier on 20.11.2010, as the financier has not chosen to issue the No Objection Certificate or to decline it, the No Objection Certificate should be deemed to have been issued on the expiry of the period of seven days from W.P.(C)No. 10365 OF 2011 4 the date of service of the notice, in terms of sub section (7) of section 51 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the additional third respondent does not dispute the fact the Ext.P1 letter was received by the financier. The petitioner's counsel has, in Ext.P1 notice, stated in categorical terms in paragraph-3 thereof, that the permit issued in respect of the stage carriage, financed by the additional third respondent, expires on 04.03.2011. The petitioner has also indicated in Ext.P1 notice that he wishes to replace the vehicle which is financed by the additional third respondent with another vehicle. From the contents Ext.P1 notice, the additional third respondent should be deemed to have been aware that the petitioner has to get the permit renewed with effect from 04.03.2011 after replacing the vehicle and unless the permit is renewed, he would not be in a position to seek replacement. However, till date the financier has not chosen to reply to Ext.P1. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of Ext.P2 application for renewal of the permit and the application for replacement of the vehicle, without insisting on the production of a No Objection Certificate W.P.(C)No. 10365 OF 2011 5 from the financier. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass final orders on the petitioner's application for renewal of the permit and replacement of the vehicle in accordance with law, without insisting on the production of a No Objection certificate from the financier expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date of which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE dmb