Suhail P vs The Sub Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10116 Ker

W.P.(C) No.22197/2020               1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                        WP(C).No.22197 OF 2020(Y)


PETITIONER:

               SUHAIL P.
               S/O. VEERANKUTTY, PUNNAPPALA HOUSE, KANDAMANGALAM,
               PUNNAPPALA P O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
               DISTRICT, PIN - 679328.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
               SRI.M.ANUROOP

RESPONDENT:

       1       THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
               SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NILAMBUR - 679329,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,

       2       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KALPETTA, KALPETTA P.O, 673121, WYNAD DISTRICT.

       3       THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
               NILAMBUR SOUTH DIVISION, KARIMPUZHA, NILAMBUR -
               679329, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

OTHER PRESENT:

               SPL.GP (FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.22197/2020                    2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration

number KL 10-W 5445. It got involved in a crime involving forest offence. Later,

the vehicle was released to the custody of the petitioner by the orders of the

Magistrate court subject to stringent conditions. Confiscation proceedings are

to be initiated. Grievance of the petitioner is that, in the meanwhile the

registration of the vehicle has expired and he proposes to renew the registration.

Ext.P3 is the application submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent

for no objection certificate.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior

Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the

Motor Vehicle Department insisted for a production of no objection from the

authorized officer, Ext.P3 application was filed. It is further submitted by the

learned counsel that , NOC is required only in exceptional cases and the Motor

Vehicle Department is not entitled to insist that NOC is liable to be produced .

4. Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to direct the

petitioner to file application for renewal of registration of the vehicle within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such

application is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be

passed by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of such application. It is made clear that renewal of the registration will

be subject to the result of the confiscator proceedings and in the meanwhile, the

petitioner shall not alienate, encumber or create any further liability over the

vehicle.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO. KL-10-W-5445.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA IN CMP 6538/2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR NO OBJECTION DATED 09.09.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.