Allowed

Rajeev.R. v. the R.T.a.,Kollam

Kerala HC21 Feb 2008WP(C)/531/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a No Objection Certificate from the financier is not a requirement for considering an application for replacement of a vehicle and directed the RTO to consider the petitioner's application without such certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the application for replacement of the vehicle without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the financier.

Rajeev.R. Vs the R.T.a.,Kollam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 531 of 2008(L)

PETITIONERS:

RAJEEV.R, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI, MATHINOOR PUTHENVEEDU, KERALAPURAM, VELLIMON P.O.

¶10

THE KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S FEDERATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, LAWRENCE BABU, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-1.

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

RESPONDENTS:

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.

¶16

BY G.P.SRI.M.R.SABU

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) NO. 531/08

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

P1: True copy of the application for renewal of permit in From PRA dated 30-6-2007

¶22

P2: True copy of the NOC dated 29-6-2007 issued by Shriram Investments Limited.

¶23

P3 True copy of the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 5-11-2007

¶24

P4: True copy of the application for replacement of vehicle in Form PVA dated 5-11-2007

¶25

P4: True copy of the application for replacement of vehicle in Form PVA dated 7-11-2007

¶26

P5: True copy of the communication issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 2911-2007

¶27

P6: True copy of the judgment in WPC 10812/2007 dated 22-6-2007

¶28

Antony Dominic, J.

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 531 of 2008

¶31

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2008

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle has been rejected by Ext.P5 for the reason that no objection certificate from the financier has not been produced. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶34

As rightly contended by the petitioners production of a no objection certificate from the financier is not a requirement for considering an application for replacement. This position has also been clarified by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment.

¶35

In view of this, I direct that Ext.P4 application shall be considered by the 1^st respondent without insisting on no objection certificate from the financier.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

Antony Dominic, Judge.

¶38

mn.

Rajeev.R. v. the R.T.a.,Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev.R. v. the R.T.a.,Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Peter Vs the Indian Bank,Kottarakkara Branch

A.D.Divya Vs Secretary, Rta/Rto, Thrissur

Union Bank of India Vs the District Collector & Others

Mani George Vs the Chief Engineer

Dr.Antony Alappat Vs District Collector & Another

O.K. Sarojini Vs Rto, Kasargod