IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23979 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SAJEEV.T.V., AGED 36, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VELIMPARAMBU, WARD NO.9, MANNANCHERRY,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA OFFICE AT CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.D.B.BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANGER, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.23979 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a TATA 709 goods carrier vehicle bearing registration No.KL 4 S 6063. The vehicle was purchased by taking a loan from the second respondent by hypothecating the vehicle. Since the petitioner could not pay the loan amounts regularly, the Bank filed O.S.484 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The suit was decreed in favour of the second respondent, and execution proceedings have been initiated against an item of immovable property, an extent of 9.30 ares of land in Survey No.315/6 of Mannancherry Village that belongs to the petitioner. Since the petitioner's permit was to expire on 1.6.2010, the petitioner had submitted an application for the renewal of his permit. The first respondent refused to renew the permit, without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. Though the petitioner had approached the second respondent for the issue of a No Objection Certificate, his case is that the second respondent has refused to issue the same. Therefore, the petitioner Wpc 23979/2010 2 seeks appropriate directions for the issue of a renewed permit to him. 2. Adv.R.S.Kalkura, who appears for the second respondent, Bank submits that since the petitioner was a defaulter in respect of the loan transaction with the Bank, the Bank is not in a position to issue the No Objection Certificate that is sought for by him. The counsel therefore submits that the objections of the second respondent may also be considered while deciding whether to grant or refuse the renewal of permit sought for by the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 4. The manner in which an application for registration, renewal of permit etc in respect of a motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement is to be considered, is set out in Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(`the Act' for short). Section 51(9) reads as follows:- “51. Special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement, etc. 1)xxx 2)xxx 3)xxx Wpc 23979/2010 3 4)xxx 5)xxx 6)xxx 7)xxx 8)xxx 9)on receipt of an application for the renewal of any permit or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration or for assignment of a new registration mark in respect of a vehicle which is held under the said agreement, the appropriate authority may, subject to the other provisions of this Act, - a)in a case where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either - i)renew or refuse to renew the permit, or ii)issue or refuse to issue the duplicate certificate of registration, or iii)assign or refuse to assign a new registration mark, b) in any other case,- i) renew the permit, or ii) issue duplicate certificate of registration, or iii)assign a new registration mark”. Wpc 23979/2010 4 3. It is clear from the above provision that the procedure to be followed by the first respondent in the present case while considering the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner is as stipulated by the above provision. It is not open to the first respondent to reject the application of the petitioner for the reason that a No Objection Certificate has not been obtained by him. The first respondent is empowered to consider the application in accordance with the stipulations in Section 51(9) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders as enjoined by law. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner in respect of his TATA 709 goods carrier bearing registration No.KL 4 S 6063 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk