IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12680 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. NAZEEMA COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SIBI JOHN BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. R. NAVAS, PALAPPALLI THEKKETHIL THODIYOOR NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON 05/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12680/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN SIL AND KTDFC DT 23.6.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR VEHICLE BEARING REGN.NO.KL10/D 5940. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDNET DT 24.4.2007 ITEM NO.148. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24802/07 DT 16.11.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.C4-7047-07 Q DT 26.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 10.1.2008 ISSUED BY KTDFC TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 7.1.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 9.1.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.C4 276/08/Q DTD 16.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 12680 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, the proceedings of the 1st respondent allowing the 3rd respondent's request for replacement of stage carriage KL-10 D 5940 with KL-01 P 5272. The ground on which the proceedings are impugned is that the petitioner being the financier of the vehicle ought to have been given notice, before allowing replacement at the request of the registered owner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the effect of replacement is that the vehicle KL-10 D 5940, which has been financed by them, undergoes a change in class and therefore under Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 they are entitled to be put on notice before replacement is allowed. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this court in Saj Tours and Travels v. State Transport Authority (1998(2) KLT 397). 2. However, counsel for the 3rd respondent would argue that by virtue of the replacement that is allowed by Ext.P3, as far as the vehicle which has been financed by the petitioner is concerned, it does not WPC 12680/08 :2 : undergo any change in class attracting Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would also rely on the judgment of this court in WP(C) No.10812/07. 3. Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that registered owner shall, at the time of conversion of the vehicle from one class to another, make an application to the financier for the issue of a No Objection Certificate. In such cases, it is necessary to produce a no objection from the financier. However, Section 83 of the Act provides for replacement of vehicles does not prescribe production of No Objection Certificate of the financier as one of the requirements. If that be so, acceptance of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would amount to this Court adding production of No Objection Certificate of the financier as a condition for replacement of vehicles. Since such a condition is not prescribed by the legislature, there will be no justification for this court to add such a condition. 4. In my view, replacement of a stage carriage does not amount to change in class attracting Section 51(6), unlike a taxi car, and if that be so, for that reason also No Objection Certificate from the financier is not a requirement for making an application. For this reason, the decision relied WPC 12680/08 :3 : on by the counsel for the petitioner has no relevance. The fact that there is no statutory provision requiring the production of No Objection from the financier has also been accepted by this court in the judgment in WP(C) No.10812/07. Therefore, for all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp