Disposed

Anson Antony v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022WP(C)/37707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Transport Officer to consider the petitioner's declaration document for bus permit renewal without insisting on an NOC from the finance company, citing a prior judgment and Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, while reserving review rights for the finance company.

What did the court decide?

Directed the RTO to consider the declaration document for permit renewal within one month without insisting on an NOC from the finance company upon proof of notice sent.

Anson Antony Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 37707 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANSON ANTONY AGED 53 YEARS S/O M.O. ANTONY, 53 MADATHUMKUDY HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O., KAVARAPARAMBU, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683572

¶8

BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR GENTLE C.D.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, ANKAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683572

¶11

2 M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD 1ST FLOOR, EMJAY TOWER BUILDING NO.XXI/202, 1, ANGAMALY, 683572.[REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER]

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 37707 of 2022 2

¶16

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶17

W.P.(C) No.37707 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The writ petition is filed with following prayers:-

¶21

I. “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit of the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P1 without insisting for NOC taking note of Exhibit.P5 declaration submitted by the petitioner and following the dictum laid down in the of Shabu Sukumaran matter Vs. RTO, Thiruvananthapuram and others reported in 2018(2) KHC 470.

¶22

II. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

¶23

III. To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶24

[SIC]

¶25

2 . The petitioner is a registered owner of a Bus bearing registration No.KL-41H-0977 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the 1 st respondent, which is valid upto 28.11.2022. The vehicle in question was purchased after availing finance from the 2 nd respondent and the hypothication of the vehicle with the 2 nd respondent was

¶26

WP(C) NO. 37707 of 2022 3

¶27

duly noted in the registration. For the purpose of renewal the petitioner sent a notice to the 2 nd respondent for getting NOC as evident by Ext P3. It is the case of the petitioner that, there is no response from the 2 nd respondent. Hence, it is contented that there is a deemed NOC in the light of Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The prayer in this writ petition is for a consideration of the Ext. P5, without insisting for NOC.

¶28

3 . Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing to consider Ext.P5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:-

¶30

The petitioner is free to submit the

¶31

necessary fee and produce documents to show that Ext.P3 is sent to 2 nd respondent.

¶32

2 . Once those documents and necessary fee is received, the 1 st respondent will consider Ext.P5, without insisting NOC from the 2 nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of the production of the document as directed as directed above.

¶33

3 . Since the judgment is delivered without

¶34

WP(C) NO. 37707 of 2022 4

¶35

giving an opportunity of hearing to the 2 nd respondent, if the 2 nd respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions, he

¶36

is free to approach this Court by filing a review.

¶37

Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 37707 of 2022 5

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37707/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO. KL-41H-0977
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.10.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO. 410048 ON 10.11.2022 IN FAVOR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DRAWN FROM THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., FROM ITS ANGAMALY BRANCH FOR A SUM OF RS. 26,000/-
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 05.11.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C).NO.32495/2018 DATED 05.10.2018

Anson Antony v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anson Antony 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

P.J.John Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.M. Vs Union of India

Ajayesh .P.v., Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

P.M.Ansari Vs P.S.Surendran

Divya Sunny Vs the State of Kerala

Preethy Vs Returning Officer