Allowed

Reji Varghese v. Transport Commissioner

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022WP(C)/13176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged vehicle blacklisting and denial of tax payment due to financier's objection. Court held RTO can renew permit and accept tax without NOC but blacklisting cannot be vacated as financier may still recover dues legally.

What did the court decide?

Respondent 2 directed to renew permit and accept tax. Blacklisting not removed. Financier directed to take recovery steps.

Reji Varghese Vs Transport Commissioner — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

REJI VARGHESE
S/O VARGHESE K.P, ALAMBIL HOUSE,
KAVUNGAMOOLAYIL, KILITHATTA,
KANGARAPADY P.O.ERNAKULAM-682 021.

¶7

BY ADVS.
MANSOOR.B.H.
SAKEENA BEEGUM
RENJITH.R

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY R.T.O OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030

¶11

3 THE MANAGER, M/S HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED, AMBILY BUILDINGS, WARRIAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016

¶12

BY ADVS.
SUSANTH SHAJI
ALBIN A. JOSEPH(K/1299/2020)

¶13

SR GP SMT RASHMI K M

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶19

prayers:

¶20

“1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the details of vehicles bearing Registration Nos KL-07.BT 6406 and KL – 7 BT 4867 from the blacklist published in Parivahan portal

¶21

To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the third respondent to provide all statutory services to the petitioner and to renew the fitness certificate and goods carriage permit in respect of vehicles bearing Registration Nos: KL-07.BT 6406 and KL -7 BT 4867

¶22

To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P10, with in a time frame.”

¶23

For the aforementioned vehicles, finance were obtained

¶24

by the petitioner from respondent No.3. The fitness certificate of both the vehicles though is valid upto 24.10.2022, but the taxes were due from 31.03.2022. Petitioner wanted to pay the taxes but

¶25

the respondents were not accepting the taxes on account of the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

fact that the financier had sent intimation to the registering authority of having not cleared the dues. It is on that account the vehicles were blacklisted.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide a provision for submitting an application to the financier for issuance of no objection and in case of non-receipt of any communication within a period of 7 days, it is deemed to have been given. Even otherwise, if the petitioner does not apply for an NOC registering authority is not impeded to renew the permit and accept the taxes. This is what has been stated in the counter affidavit of the state.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the financier submits that the petitioner has not cleared the entire dues of the vehicles, certain amount is still due. Petitioner had never applied for NOC and therefore the question of issuance of NOC does not arise.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Section 51(6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of

¶32

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:

¶35

“Section 51(6):- The registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of a permit under section 81 or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration under sub-section (14) of section 41, or for the assignment of a new registration mark [under section 47, or removal of the vehicle to another State, or at the time of conversion of the vehicle from one class to another, or for issue of no objection certificate under section 48, or for change of residence or place of business under section 49, or for the alteration of the vehicle under section 52, make an application] to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement (such person being hereafter in this section referred to as the financier) for the issue of a no objection certificate (hereafter in this section referred to as the certificate).

¶36

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section and subsections (8) and (9), “appropriate authority” in relation to any permit means the authority which is authorised by this Act to renew such permit and, in relation to registration, means the authority which is authorised by this Act to issue duplicate certificate of registration or to assign a new registration mark.

¶37

(7) Within seven days of the receipt of an application under sub-section (6) the financier may issue, or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing communicated to the applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier.

¶38

(8) The registered owner shall, while applying to the appropriate authority for the renewal of any permit under section 81, or for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registration under sub-section (14) of section 41, or while applying for assignment of a new registration mark under section 47, submit with such application the certificate, if any, obtained under sub-section (7) or, where no such certificate has been obtained, the communication received

¶39

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

(9) On receipt of an application for the renewal of any permit or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration or for assignment of a new registration mark in respect of a vehicle which is held under the said agreement, the appropriate authority may, subject to the other provisions of this Act,—

¶43

(a) in a case where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either—

¶44

(i) renew or refuse to renew the permit, or

¶45

(ii) issue or refuse to issue the duplicate certificate of registration, or

¶46

(iii) assign or refuse to assign a new registration mark;

¶47

(b) in any other case,—

¶48

(i) renew the permit, or

¶49

(ii) issue duplicate certificate of registration, or

¶50

(iii) assign a new registration mark.

¶51

(10) A registering authority making an entry in the certificate of registration regarding—

¶52

(a) hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement of a motor vehicle, or

¶53

(b) the cancellation under sub-section (3) of an entry, or

¶54

¶55

(d) any alteration in a motor vehicle, or

¶56

(e) suspension or cancellation of registration of a motor vehicle, or

¶57

(f) change of address, shall communicate 5[by registered post acknowledgment due] to the financier that such entry has been made.”

¶58

Cumulative reading of the aforementioned provisions says

¶59

that no doubt, at a particular stage, registered owner is required to

¶60

submit an application for issuance of NOC to the financier, but in

¶61

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶62

¶63

case no such application is submitted registering authority is not incapacitated to renew the permit and accept the taxes. The vehicles have only been blacklisted on receipt of the objection from the financier as per the provisions of Rule 167(7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Since the authority has reflected no objection in allowing the petitioner to remit the tax, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent RTO to renew the permit and accept the tax of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. However, the blacklisting cannot be ordered to be omitted. Financier is deemed to take steps to recover the amount in accordance with law.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 13176 OF 2022

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13176/2022

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶71

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF` `THE VEHICLE BEARING NO KL-07 BT 6406`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF` `THE VEHICLE BEARING NO KL-07 BT 4867`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE OF` `VEHICLE BEARING NO KL-07 BT 6406`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE OF` `VEHICLE BEARING NO KL-07 BT 4867`
`Exhibit P5`	`COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED AS PER KERALA` `MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION ACT IN RESPECT OF` `VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL7 BT 6406`
`Exhibit P6`	`COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED AS PER KERALA` `MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT IN RESPECT OF IN` `RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL` `7 BT 4867`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO` `P.GD 7/761/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`COPY OF THE VEHICLE HISTORY REPORT FOR` `REGISTRATION NUMBER KL BT 6406`
`Exhibit P9`	`COPY OF THE VEHICLE HISTORY REPORT FOR` `REGISTRATION NUMBER KL BT 4867`
`Exhibit P10`	`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.3.2022 IN` `RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NOKL-` `07 BT 6406`
`Exhibit P11`	`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.3.2022 IN` `RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NOKL-` `07 BT 4867`

Reji Varghese v. Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Varghese v. Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Federal Bank Officers Association Vs S.D.Singh

Sidhu Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Shri. Ramesh Ramachandran, Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed K.M Vs v,R Premkumar

Pg Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Employees' Welfare Association, Vs Biju Prabhakar, I.A.S.