IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8883 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.NATARAJAN, PEEDIKA CHIRAYIL HOUSE KANDALLOR VILLAGE, KANDALLOOR P.O, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O. OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8883 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-04/P 9888. The vehicle was purchased by the petitioner after availing finance from the ICICI bank. According to the petitioner, he has paid the entire amount that is due to the bank. Therefore, he has filed a suit O.S.No.274/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam and has obtained an order of injunction against re-possession of the vehicle by the financier. Since the validity of the permit expired on 15.8.2009, the petitioner has submitted an application for the renewal of his permit. He has paid the requisite fee and has also produced all necessary certificates for the renewal of the permit. However, by Ext.P9, the third respondent has refused to renew the vehicle for the sole reason that O.S.No.274/2008 is pending before the Munsiff Court. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the third respondent in this Writ Petition. wpc No.8883/2010 2 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the pendency of the suit between the petitioner and the financier is no ground to refuse the renewal of the permit that is sought for by him. There is no provision of law or rule disentitling the petitioner to the renewal of his permit for the reason that is mentioned in Ext.P9. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He has also not been able to point out any ground to refuse the renewal of permit that is sought for by the petitioner. 4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. ExtP9 is quashed. The third respondent is directed to consider the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner, in respect of his goods carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-04/P-9888 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/