IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 14435 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ROY ANTONY,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE VARGHESE ANTONY, THOPPIL HOUSE,THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., 123,ANGAPPA NAIKKAN STREET, CHENNAI,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHES GEORGE VADAKKEL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23152 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14435/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE R.C.BOOK OF TANKER LORRY WIH REG.NO.KL-07/AS 5799 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF TANKER LORRY WITH REG.NO.KL-04/999 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE R.C. BOOK OF LMV GOODS CARRIAGE WITH REG. NO.KL-04/Q 1100 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DTD. 29/03/2008 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS KOCHI ASST.BRANCH MANAGER. P5: COPIES OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DTD. 29/03/2008 SHOWING THE DESPATCH OF EXT.P4 NOTICE. P6: COPIES OF THE POSTAL A/D CARDS SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 NOTICE. P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CC.NO.81/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CDRF, ALAPPUZHA. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.14435 OF 2008 & 23152 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 14435 of 2008 was filed seeking direction against the 1st respondent to receive motor vehicle tax with respect to three vehicles owned by the petitioner bearing Registration Nos. KL-7/AS 5799, KL-4/999 and KL-04 Q/1100, without insisting for production of the original registration certificate. According to the petitioner, the vehicles in question are under hypothecation to the 2nd respondent, from whom the petitioner had availed loan, and the original registration certificates are given custody to the 2nd respondent. The fact relating custody of registration certificate is however denied by the 2nd respondent. It is noticed that this Court through an interim order dated 29.9.2008 had issued direction to the 1st respondent to receive motor vehicle tax on a provisional basis, subject to result of the Writ Petition, without insisting for production of the original registration certificates and subject to further condition of the petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court not to transfer in any manner or dismantle any of the W.P.(C) Nos.14435/2008 & 23152/2010 2 vehicles till the disposal of the Writ Petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent pointed out that in view of Rule 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, motor vehicle tax can be accepted by the competent authority only if original of the registration certificate is produced. However, considering the fact that this Court has issued a provisional direction, I am not entering upon any finding regarding the controversy. It is submitted by learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that they have no objection in the 1st respondent receiving motor vehicle tax from the petitioner with respect to these vehicles. Under the above circumstances W.P.(C) No.14435/2008 is disposed of making the interim order absolute. 3. W.P.(C) No.23152/2010 is filed seeking directions against the 1st respondent, to receive vehicle tax with respect of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-04/999 and to renew its goods carriage permit, without insisting for production of original registration certificate. As observed above, there is already a direction issued by this Court for accepting motor vehicle tax, without insisting for production of original W.P.(C) Nos.14435/2008 & 23152/2010 3 registration certificate. But, with respect to the second prayer, there is stiff opposition from the side of the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, permit of any vehicle which is under hypothecation can be renewed only on getting No-Objection Certificate from the financier. It is pointed out by the 2nd respondent that inspite of interim order obtained in W.P.(C) No.14435/2008, the petitioner has not remitted the motor vehicle tax due with respect to the said vehicles, till date. However, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes such statements. But, at the same time, it is admitted that with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL-04/999, there is some arrears. 4. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner has not so far submitted any application seeking renewal of the permit and there is no hurdle in receiving any such application if it is submitted along with documents as required in the relevant provisions. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is W.P.(C) Nos.14435/2008 & 23152/2010 4 baseless. If the petitioner remits the entire dues of motor vehicle tax in view of the order issued in W.P.(C) No.14435/2008 and if he produces No Objection Certificates from the 2nd respondent as provided under Section 51(6), there is no reason to presume that the 1st respondent will not entertain the renewal application. 6. It is pointed out by the petitioner that even if there is any refusal from the part of the financier in issuing No Objection Certificate, the petitioner can resort to further remedies provided under Section 51(9) of the Act. It is always left open to the petitioner to resort to such remedies and if any such application is submitted it is for the 1st respondent to consider such application in accordance with the relevant provisions. Needless to observe that if payment of motor vehicles tax due has not been made by virtue of the interim order issued in W.P. (C) 14435/2008, the petitioner will be liable for payment of interest due thereon in accordance with law. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps