IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32477 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.S.ASHARAF,AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.LIAYAKUNJU VALLYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PERINGALA PO, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RTO, KAYAMKULAM, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE. 2. M/S.NARESH KUMAR NAHAR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ROOF ARCADE, GENERAL MUTHIAN MUDALIST, 2ND FLOOR, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600079. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASHIF FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32477 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a goods vehicle on 31.5.2005 from its former owner with financial assistance from the second respondent. The validity of the goods permit issued to the said vehicle expired on 17.6.2010. Though the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit by submitting Ext.P4 application accompanied by the requisite fee, the first respondent did not renew the permit, but returned the application with an endorsement directing the petitioner to produce a No Objection Certificate from the financier of the vehicle. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to renew the good carriage permit of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-02/B-9072 without insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from the financier. 2. The petitioner states that he has discharged the liability to the second respondent and no amount is payable by him to the second respondent. He has also stated that notwithstanding the said fact, when the second respondent attempted to repossess the vehicle, he was constrained to file O.S.No.32 of 2009 in the Court of Munsiff pf Kayamkulam for an order of injunction restraining the second respondent, their men and agents from re-possessing the W.P.(C) No.32477 of 2010 2 vehicle and that the said suit is pending. 3. Though the second respondent has been served by special messenger, he has not chosen to enter appearance and to deny the petitioner's averment that the petitioner has repaid the loan availed by him to purchase the disputed vehicle. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to renew the permit in respect of goods carriage bearing registration No. KL-02/B-9072 without insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent financier. It is however clarified that nothing contained in the judgment will stand in the way of the second respondent from resisting the suit, O.S.No.32 of 2009 pending in the Court of Munsiff of Kayamkulam or from taking steps to recover the amounts, if any, due from the petitioner. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.