Skaria vs Regional Transport Officer, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16305 Ker

W.P(C).14677/2021
                                   1


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 14677 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             SKARIA, AGED 56 YEARS
             S/O. THOMAS, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O.,
             PANACHERY, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR,PIN-680 652

             BY ADVS.
             S.RENJITH
             K.R.PRATHISH



RESPONDENT/S:

      1      REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR
             REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE
             P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 003

      2      THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR BRANCH,
             PERICHERY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, PERINCHERY'S
             BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001

             (SECOND RESPONDENT NAME CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN
             I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 DATED 04.08.2021)

             BY ADVS.
             S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU
             K.B.RAJESH


OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP V.K SUNIL


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).14677/2021
                                    2



                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration

No.KL-08-BG-1548 which is a multi axle goods vehicle with interstate

permit. Petitioner had availed a loan from the second respondent bank.

It seems that, period of permit, which was valid upto 22.07.2020, had

elapsed. Petitioner approached the first respondent for renewal of the

permit and remitted the fees. Stating that the first respondent has not

obtained no objection/consent from the second respondent/financier, he

had issued a notice to the second respondent which was not replied and

hence the first respondent is liable to be proceeded with the application

and to issue the permit deeming that the second respondent has no

objection. Petitioner relied on the decision reported in Shabu

Sukumaran v. Regional Transport Officer, Tvm & Ors [2018(2)

KLT 219].

2. Second respondent appeared and opposed the applicaton

contending that the loan availed by the petitioner was defaulted and has

become NPA in 2017 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the second respondent now submitted that the

second respondent/Corporation bank has merged with Union bank and it

is now known as 'Union Bank of India, Thrissur branch' W.P(C).14677/2021

3. Having considered the objection raised by the second

respondent, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to take up Ext.P5

application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

two months from today and pass appropriate orders on it after giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to all parties concerned,

including the petitioner and the second respondent.

Having considered this, I am inclined to direct the first respondent

to receive fees and to accept the application for renewal, if it is

submitted within a period of three weeks from today and to pass

appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).14677/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14677/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-08-BG-

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS VEHICLE DATED 23.07.2015

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.02.2021 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT IS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT