IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19136 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JOHN SOJI ABRAHAM, THARAKAN VILLA, THRIPERUNTHURA.P.O, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPOFRT OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 2. M/S. INTEGRATED FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BANK ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19136 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he had purchased a vehicle KL-04 P 497 availing of hire purchase from the 2nd respondent. According to him, he had paid the full amount and thereafter issued Ext.P2 to the 2nd respondent requesting for an NOC for applying for cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement. There was no response to Ext.P2 and thereupon he submitted Ext.P3 application to the 1st respondent for endorsing the cancellation of the hire purchase. That was returned to the petitioner to resubmit the application along with Form 35 obtained from the 2nd respondent, which is to be signed by both parties. It is in this circumstances, writ petition is filed. 2. Once hire purchase is terminated, the registered owner is entitled to have the same endorsed on the Registration Certificate. In this case, the petitioner has issued Ext.P2 notice to the 2nd respondent, which was not responded. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to make an application as he has done by submitting Ext.P3. Once such application is received, 1st respondent is bound to consider the same on merits and pass WPC No.19136/08 :2 : orders thereon. As against doing so, what has been done by the 1st respondent is that he has returned the application with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit the same along with Form 35 signed by both parties. This requirement now insisted by the 1st respondent is one beyond compliance and cannot be upheld. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to resubmit Ext.P3 and on receipt thereof, the 1st respondent shall consider the same with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Thereafter orders on Ext.P3 shall be passed by the 1st respondent without delay in this matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp