Allowed

Zeenath v. Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC22 Oct 2009WP(C)/27480/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a stage carriage operator, sought vehicle replacement. Court held RTO cannot insist on financier's no objection certificate for replacement, as per referenced precedent. Petitioner's writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider and pass orders on the application for vehicle replacement without insisting on production of no objection certificate from the financier within one month.

Zeenath Vs Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 27480 of 2009(D)

PETITIONER(S):

ZEENATH, W/O.SAIDALY, 1/154, MULLAPALLY PALAZHI, OLAVANNA P.O, G.A.COLLEGE, KOZHIKKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKKODE.

¶13

GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶16

W. P (C) No. 27480 of 2009

¶17

Dated this, the 22^nd October, 2009.

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator possessing a regular permit to operate on the route Palazhi – City – Medical College in Kozhikode district. The petitioner applied for replacement of the vehicle. The same is not being considered on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted no objection certificate from the financier of the old vehicle. The petitioner contends that the question of producing no objection certificate from the financier arises only in case of renewal or transfer of permit and not in the case of replacement of vehicle. The petitioner relies on Ext. P4 judgment in support of the said contention.

¶20

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader could not dispute the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by Ext. P4 judgment.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3 application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the petitioner without insisting on production of no objection certificate from the financier, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶22

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶23

Tds/

¶24

[True copy]

¶25

P.S to Judge.

Zeenath v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeenath v. Regional Transport Officer

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

K.S.R.T.C Vs D.Madhusoodanan Nair

K.M. Koya Moideen Vs Registering Authority, Sub Regional Tra

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Neyy

Anakkayath Sarada Vs the Ernad Primary Co-Op.Agricultural

Sunu Varghese Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Sherif Vs the Rta, Kottayam & Anr.