IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6905 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.K.BABU, THAZHATHUPURAKAL HOUSE, CHIRALETYAM P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6905 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Pattambi-Thrissur with vehicle No.KL-10/G 1431, on the strength of a valid permit. Since the basic permit expired on 26.3.2008, the petitioner is operating on the basis of temporary permits issued under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). The present temporary permit is valid till 21.5.2010. The petitioner has sought for the replacement of his vehicle with a later model vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AB 5572, after remitting the requisite fee. He complains that the respondent has not taken any action on his application till date, on the ground that he has not produced a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the financier. It is contended that, even in the absence of an NOC from the financier, orders could be passed by following the procedure that is contemplated by Section 51(6) of the Act. Orders regarding replacement are to be wpc No.6905/2010 2 passed in compliance with Section 83 read with Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Since the requirement of an NOC from a financier is not necessary for granting replacement of the vehicle, it is pointed out that the stand taken by the respondent is unjustified. 2. In view of the fact that for granting replacement of a vehicle, an NOC from the financier is not necessary, the application of the petitioner should not have been kept pending on the ground that he had not produced an NOC. 3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application for replacement submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P5, 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, without insisting on an NOC from the financier. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/