Disposed

Sabu Joy v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC4 Jan 2019WP(C)/30300/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala settled a writ petition challenging the rejection of a goods carriage permit renewal. The court noted the dispute with the financier was resolved and an NOC was issued. The petition was disposed of by quashing the impugned order and directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; 1st respondent directed to reconsider renewal application within one month with notice to petitioner and 2nd respondent.

Sabu Joy Vs the 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 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 30300 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SABU JOY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.JOY, SANJU BHAVAN, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PUNALUR, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM-691305.

¶11

2 M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED NANTHYATTU PLAZA, COLLEGE JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

¶13

SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN

¶14

R1 SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 30300 of 2017

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of heavy goods carriage bearing registration No.KL-25/A-7490 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which was valid till 16.11.2014, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 25.07.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, whereby the application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit stands rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce No Objection Certificate from the 2^nd respondent, who is the financier of the said vehicle. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent financier.

¶21

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has settled the dispute with the 2^nd respondent

¶22

WP(C).No. 30300 of 2017

¶23

-3-

¶24

financier and the said respondent has issued Ext.P7 communication dated 04.10.2018 stating that the petitioner has no liability towards Kottarakkara Branch of the

¶25

2^nd respondent, in respect of loan agreement No.PATHNO910220001. The 2^nd respondent has also issued Ext.P8 communication dated 24.05.2018 addressed to the registering authority of goods carriage bearing registration No.KL-25/A-7490, regarding termination of the hire purchase agreement. Ext.P8 is in the form of a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner has produced Exts.P7 and P8 along with I.A.No.1 of 2018.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already cleared the entire liability due towards the 2^nd respondent financier, as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8 and as such, there is no such legal impediment in the 1^st respondent considering the application for renewal of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit.

¶27

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the said respondent has no subsisting claim against the petitioner in respect of the loan transaction in question and as such, it has no objection whatsoever in the

¶28

WP(C).No. 30300 of 2017

¶29

-4-

¶30

1^st respondent considering the application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, taking note of Exts.P7 and P8.

¶31

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, the 1^st respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 2^nd respondent financier, taking note of Exts.P7 and P8.

¶32

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P6 order dated 25.07.2017 of the 1^st respondent and by directing the said respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of Exts.P2 goods carriage permit, taking note of Exts.P7 and Ext.P8. A decision in this regard shall be taken, with notice to the petitioner and also the 2^nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶35

bpr

¶36

WP(C).No. 30300 of 2017

¶37

-5-

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF R.C. PARTICULARS PETITIONER'S 2009 MODEL HGV GOODS CARRIAGE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-25A-7490.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO.P.GD.25/1670/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX TOKEN OF THE VEHICLE TILL 30/06/2017 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE POLICY OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/06/2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.19742/2O17 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6/46974/2017/PLR DATED 25/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sabu Joy v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu Joy v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.R. Raju Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission

Rashid N.P. Vs the Regional Trasnport Officer

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 Vs the Jointe Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Mr. Abdul Salam, Vs the Keala State Beeverages Corporation Ltd.

Suhada Beegum A.K. Vs Anoop Varkey

M.G. Rakesh, Vs Tomin J. Thachankary IPS