Allowed

Pavitran v. the Secretary, Rta, Kasaragode

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010WP(C)/22666/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the requirement of a no objection certificate from a financier for replacing a stage carriage vehicle. The High Court held no such certificate is mandated by law.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the petitioner's application for vehicle replacement without insisting on a no objection certificate from the financier within one month.

Pavitran Vs the Secretary, Rta, Kasaragode — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 22666 of 2010(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

C.C.PAVITRAN,S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, H.NO.6/776,PERUNKUNNUPPALA HOUSE,P.O.PARIYARAM, TALIPARAMBA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KASARAGOD.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

KsS

¶17

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶18

W.P(C) NO: 22666 OF 2010 G

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th July, 2010.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Alakkad-Anandasram as per a regular permit bearing registration No: KL-13/M 4446. The regular permit is valid till 5/5/2013. The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No: KL13/M 4446 is subject to a hire purchase agreement with a private financier. The petitioner has purchased a later model vehicle bearing registration No: K-13/R 1719 and has submitted an application for replacement of the earlier vehicle with the later model one. The complaint of the petitioner is that his application for replacement has not been considered on the ground that he had not produced a no objection certificate from the financier.

¶22

The counsel for the petitioner submits that a no objection certificate is not required for the replacement of a vehicle. He relies on the decision of this Court in W.PC 10812/2007 wherein a similar issue was considered by this Court. I have heard the learned Senior Govt. Pleader Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar also.

¶23

In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment there are no grounds to insist that a no objection

¶24

WPC 22666/2010

¶25

¶26

certificate from the financier should be produced by the petitioner. There is also no provision of law that requires the production of such a certificate for the replacement of a vehicle. Petitioner's application is one under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the stipulation in Ext.P5 that the petitioner should produce a no objection certificate from the financier is without any basis.

¶27

In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for replacement of the vehicle in accordance with law without insisting on a no objection certificate from the financier 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.

¶28

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶29

¶30

WPC 22666/2010 3

Pavitran v. the Secretary, Rta, Kasaragode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitran v. the Secretary, Rta, Kasaragode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalinikutty Amma Vs Mini Antony

Velu Vasudevan Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P.T.Muhammad Vs Khadeeja