Vincent D Paul vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 2919 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.9066 OF 2020(G)


PETITIONER/S:

            VINCENT D PAUL,
            S/O. ANTHONY,
            8/35B 13451 B, THEKKAN HOUSE,
            MELOOR P. O., KALADY, CHALAKUDY.

            BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.

      2     THE TRICHUR DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OWNERS
            CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.856
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANCHIGAL LANE,
            THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.

            R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO
            R1 SR.GP.BIMAL K NATH




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9066 OF 2020(G)

                                  2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the R.C owner of a stage carriage

vehicle with Reg.No.KL 05/U 1632. The vehicle had a

hypothecation with second respondent, which was

endorsed on the RC. The grievance of the petitioner is

that even after the hypohecation has been brought to

an end, No Objection Certificate was not issued by the

second respondent. Hence he submitted Form 35

before the first respondent for termination. It was not

accepted on the ground that it was not endorsed by the

second respondent. The contention of the second

respondent is that the petitioner is a guarantor in yet

another transaction, which is pending and hence NOC

cannot be given in relation to the present

hypothecation. It was contended by the learned

counsel that in the light of other liability itself, the

second respondent is justifiably entitled to refuse to WP(C).No.9066 OF 2020(G)

sign Form 35.

2. I cannot support these contentions of the

learned counsel for the second respondent. The anxiety

of the second respondent is that if Form 35 is signed,

the other loan transaction will not be secured. It seems

that, that was an independent transaction. Merely

because the petitioner herein is the surety in another

transaction, the second respondent is not entitled to

refuse counter sign in Form 35. He has to proceed

against the parties to that hypothecation invoking the

terms of that hypothecation.

3. However, the learned senior Government

Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioner

herein was residing within the jurisdiction of the Joint

RTO, Chalakudy. He has to file appropriate application

before that authority. Having considered this, I am

inclined to direct the second respondent to endorse on

the prescribed Form 35 on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as WP(C).No.9066 OF 2020(G)

possible, on production before the second respondent.

The petitioner shall file appropriate application before

the Joint RTO, Chalakudy, who shall pass appropriate

orders on it, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly,

the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.9066 OF 2020(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER VEHICLE KL-05/U1632.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TERMINATION OF HYPOTHECATION DATED 12.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2020.

    RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS        NIL