Disposed

V.M.Bijaly, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2023WP(C)/8541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition regarding non-renewal of a vehicle permit, directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the application and call for a declaration from the financier. It allowed time for the petitioner to furnish the statutory declaration regarding the financier's non-response before processing the renewal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to process the renewal application after the petitioner furnishes a declaration under Section 51(8) of the Act within ten days, giving the petitioner and 5th respondent

V.M.Bijaly, Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO.8541 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

V.M.BIJALY, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.MUSAVANNAN RAWTHER V.P, VALIYAKUNNATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686507

¶6

BY ADVS.
R.REJI
M.V.THAMBAN
THARA THAMBAN
B.BIPIN
ARUN BOSE

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695001

¶9

2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695012

¶10

3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (JOINT RTO), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE), KANJIRAPPALY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686507

¶11

4THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANJIRAPPALY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686507

¶12

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 2

¶13

5HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD.,
IIND FLOOR, AMBILI BUILDING,
WARRIAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682016

¶14

BY ADVS.
SMT.PARVATHY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SUSANTH SHAJI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 3

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper

¶19

lorry bearing registration No.KL-34—E-8870. The
vehicle is hypothecated to the 5th respondent and the
same has been endorsed in Ext.P1 Registration
Certificate. The permit issued in respect of the
aforesaid vehicle was valid up to 23.03.2023. The
petitioner made an online application for renewal of
the permit as evident from Ext.P4 receipt. The
petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is not
processing the application and is insisting for a No
Objection Certificate [NOC] from the 5th respondent-
financier. The petitioner refers to Section 51(9) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity, ‘the Act’]
and submits that even if the financier objects to the
renewal of the permit, the Registering Authority has
the discretion to renew the permit.

¶20

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 4

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent
submits that huge amounts are due to the
5th respondent in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and
though the petitioner had, vide Ext.P3, requested for
NOC, the same was not provided with. The learned
counsel fairly submits that no communication stating
reasons for refusal is issued to the petitioner in
terms of Section 51(7) of the Act. However, the
learned counsel submits that the application of the
petitioner for renewal of permit is not accompanied by
a declaration under Section 51(8) of the Act to the
effect that he has not received any communication from
the financier within the period stipulated therein.

¶22

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for
respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies

¶24

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 5

¶25

on the judgment in Shabu Sukumaran v. RTO, Tvm. &
Ors. [2018 (2) KLT 219], wherein this Court, after
considering Section 51 of the Act, observed as
follows:

¶26

“Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short) deals with special provisions regarding
motor vehicle subject to hire purchase
agreement. Sub-section (6) of Section 51
provides that 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

¶27

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 6

¶28

the said agreement of hire purchase (such
person being referred to as the financier) for
the issue of a no objection certificate. Sub-
section (7) of Section 51 provides that within
seven days of the receipt of an application
under sub-section (6), the financier may issue,
or refuse, for reason which shall be recorded
in writing and communicated to the applicant,
to issue, the certificate applied for, and
where the financier failed 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.”

¶29

5. The prayer of the petitioner is for a
direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his
application for renewal of permit without insisting
for NOC from the 5th respondent.

¶30

6. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request
before the 5th respondent for NOC, the same is not
furnished. It is also not in dispute that no reason

¶31

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 7

¶32

has been communicated to the petitioner for the
refusal in terms of Section 51(7) of the Act.

¶33

7. The petitioner has not submitted a declaration
under Section 51(8) of the Act to the effect that he
has not received any communication from the financier
within the period of 7 days stipulated under Section
51(7).

¶34

8. Since it is submitted that the application of
the petitioner for renewal of permit is pending
consideration before the 3rd respondent, there will be
a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the said
application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and the 5th respondent and if the
petitioner furnishes a declaration in terms of Section
51(8) of the Act within a period of ten days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The 3rd respondent shall process the application and
pass appropriate orders within a period of one month

¶35

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 8

¶36

from the date of receipt of the aforesaid declaration.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

 Sd/-

¶39

 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
 JUDGE

¶40

sp/01/08/2023

¶41

W.P(C) No.8541 of 2023 9

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-

¶44

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE
PETITIONER'S VEHICLE DATED 22.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMITS OF
VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-34-E-
8870 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
24.03.2018

¶45

EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.03.2023 FILED BY THE DEPONENT BEFORE
THE FINANCIER (HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE
LTD)
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION DATED
19.06.2023

V.M.Bijaly, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Bijaly, v. State of Kerala

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

Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Co-Operative Society Limited No. R-23IV/680, 681, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

The Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachara Sabha (Kerala), Vs the State of Kerala

The Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachara Sabha (Kerala), Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafi K., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sathyapalan Unnithan, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Suvarna N.T., Vs the Regional Transport Authority