Petitioner sought direction to R2 to consider renewal permit application. Court disposed of petition directing R2 to consider application pending hearing.
Director R2 to consider renewal application after affording petitioner and third respondent opportunity of being heard within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/15TH SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 8576 of 2015 (V)
PETITIONER :
ABDU RAHIMAN P., OTHAYANGOTT HOUSE, P.O. MANIPURAM, KODUVALLY KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE – 673001.
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOZHIKODE – 673 001.
*ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED
----------------------------------
*ADDL.R3. M/S.CANARA BANK
VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 004.
*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.04.2015 IN IA 4925/15.
R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA
R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S. BRITE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 8576 of 2015 (V) --------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBITP2: TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 6.11.2014.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR NOC DATED 12.1.2015.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.1.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8576 of 2015
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for renewal.
W.P.(C) No.8576 of 2015
-2-
the purpose of issuance the NOC. The said request was sent by registered post acknowledgment on 21.01.2015. However, no reply was received within the time stipulated under Section 51 of the Act. As per Section 51(7) of the Act, the financier had to reply within 7 days or else sanction would deemed to have been obtained. In the instant case, the respondent has replied by communication dated 30.01.2015 that they would consider the request only when the loan liability is closed in its entirety. The respondent has power to consider the matter by invoking powers under Section 51(9) of the Act. The petitioner points out that the authorities in case, consider the application for renewal, if no reply has been received from the financier or if the request for NOC has been rejected. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
W.P.(C) No.8576 of 2015
-3-
for the additional third respondent in the matter.
As the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 application, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 application, after affording the petitioner and the additional third respondent, an opportunity of being heard within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
Scl.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regional Transport Authority should consider the petitioner's application for permit renewal pending financier response.
Whether the petitioner needs an opportunity of being heard before making a final decision on the renewal application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdu Rahiman P.
The Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode
M/s. Canara Bank
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
