Disposed

Saji Andrews v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WP(C)/11485/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application for renewal of the contract carriage permit along with the Notice of Objection (NOC) request and postal receipt within two weeks. The Transport Officer is directed to consider the renewal application, afford a hearing to concerned parties, and decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit renewal application with supporting documents within two weeks; directed Transport Officer to decide within six weeks after hearing.

Saji Andrews Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJI ANDREWS AGED 53 YEARS S/O.ANDREWS, ANICKAL PUTHENPARAMBIL, VAKATHANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686538.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.

¶11

2 M/S.INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED, SANA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, NEAR PARTHAS, KOCHI-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶12

BY SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/E-8794 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 contract carriage permit, which was valid till 28.11.2018, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer to receive the application for renewal of permit without insisting for No-Objection Certificate from the 2^nd respondent financier, taking note of Ext.P4 declaration made by him and following the dictum laid down in Shabu Sukumaran v. RTO, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2018 (2) KHC 470] .

¶18

On 10.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶19

On 12.04.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶20

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶21

¶22

for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is yet to make an application for renewal of Ext.P2 contract carriage permit. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment.

¶23

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Ext.P6 acknowledgment evidencing dispatch of Ext.P3 request for no objection certificate to the 2^nd respondent financier of the vehicle.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶25

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶26

In Shabu Sukumaran v. Regional Transport Officer, TVM and others [2018 (2) KHC 470] , after referring to the provisions under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court has held that, as per sub-section (8) of Section 51, while applying for renewal of permit or for issuance of duplicate

¶27

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶28

¶29

certificate of registration or for assignment of a new registration mark, the registered owner shall submit the certificate, if any, obtained from the financier under sub-section (7) or, where no such certificate has been obtained, the communication received from the financier under that sub-section, or, as the case may be, a declaration that he has not received any communication from the financier within the period of seven days specified in that sub-section. In the said decision, this Court held further that, even in the case, in which financier has objected renewal of permit, registering authority has discretion to renew the permit, after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. In the said decision, this Court has also held that registering authority has to apply its mind to the objections, if any, raised by the financier and take an appropriate decision as to whether despite such objections of the financier, applicant is entitled for renewal of permit.

¶30

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶31

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall submit an application for renewal of Ext.P2 contract carriage permit, producing therewith a copy of Ext.P3 request for noobjection certificate, Ext.P6 postal receipt and also a declaration as per the mandate to sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two weeks.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader would submit that if any such application is received, and the same is in order and the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 2^nd respondent financier and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be specified by this Court.

¶34

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶35

i) Within two weeks from the date of receipt

¶36

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶37

¶38

of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall submit an application for renewal of Ext.P2 contract carriage permit before the 1^st respondent, producing therewith a copy of Ext.P3 request for NoObjection Certificate, Ext.P6 postal receipt and also a declaration as per the mandate to sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶39

ii) If any such application is received and the same is in order and the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent financier and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, taking note of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra.

¶40

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶41

¶42

iii) A decision in this regard shall be taken,

¶43

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

¶44

within a period of six weeks from the date

¶45

of receipt of such application.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶48

AV/22/6

¶49

WP(C).No.11485 of 2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO BUS NO.KL33E-8794.

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 29.11.2013 WHICH WAS VALID UPTO 28.11.2018.

¶55

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.10.2018 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOC FOR RENEWAL OF NOC.

¶56

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED ON 30.11.2018 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 51(8) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.40245/2018.

¶58

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 6/12/2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Saji Andrews v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji Andrews v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

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

Mary Vincent, Vs Kochi Corporation

Anil Kumar.T.P Vs the Secretary

Shirley Philip, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Jishnu.G.Nair Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Prasannakumary, Vs the District Geologist

Leena.C.H Vs the Secretary