IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 113 of 2009(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.V.HARIKRISHNAN S/O.SANKARA WARRIER, AGED 50 YEARS, 430, RASEENA QUARTERS, CIVIL STATION P.O. SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.113/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for replacement without insisting of production of NOC from the financier. 2. Petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10/C 6201, operating on a regular permit on the route Mayyil-Chalode-Kannur Head Quarters Hospital. By Ext.P1, petitioner sought replacement of the said vehicle by stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13/G9849. On its receipt, the respondent by Ext.P2 required the petitioner to produce NOC from M/s. Arihand Investments No.97 Portuguese Church Street, Chennai-1. On its receipt, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3, informing the respondent that in terms of Section 51(6) of the Motor WP(c).No.113/2009 /2/ Vehicles Act, NOC of the financier is not necessary for considering an application for replacement of the vehicle. In spite of Ext.P3, Ext.P1 was not considered and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. It is in terms of Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the petitioner has filed Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle. The question is whether for considering such an application made under Section 83, NOC of the financier is a requirement. Section 51(6) of the Act provides the circumstances in which NOC of the financier should be produced in respect of the motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreement. Section 51(6) reads as under. “The registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority for the renewal of a permit under Section 81 or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration under sub-section (14) of Section 41, or for the assignment of a new registration mark (under Section 47, or removal of the vehicle to another State, or at the time of conversion of the vehicle from one class to another, or for issue of no objection certificate under Section 348, or for change of residence or place of business under Section 49, or for the alteration of the vehicle under Section 52, make an application) to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement (such person being hereafter in this section referred to as the financier) for the issue of a no objection certificate WP(c).No.113/2009 /2/ (hereinafter in this section referred to as the certificate). 4. A perusal of Section 51(6) quoted above would show that the legislature has not included an application under Section 83 of the Act and prescribed that NOC of the financier should be produced to consider an application for replacement. If that be so, NOC of the financier is not a requirement for considering the application under Section 83 and consequently, the direction in Ext.P2, requiring the petitioner to produce the NOC from the financier is unsustainable. For that reason, Ext.P2 stands quashed and the respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.113/2009 /2/