Selvarajan vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 10735 Ker

W.P.(C) No.5949/2021               1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.5949 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER/S:

                SELVARAJAN
                AGED 42 YEARS
                S/O.GOVINDA GOWDER, SATHYASAI NAGAR, ANNUR ROAD,
                METTUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-641391, REPRESENTED BY
                POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JAMSHEERALI,
                S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, CHEMMALA HOUSE, KAPPUPARAMBA,
                THAZHEKKODE, MALAPPURAM.

                BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

                THE SECRETARY
                REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-
                676505.

                2.THE RTA, MALAPPURAM,
                 ( IS SUO MOTU IMPLEAED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER
                JUDGEMNT)


OTHER PRESENT:

                SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5949/2021                     2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

The RTA. Malappuram, is suo motu impleaded and the directions in

this judgment will be binding on the RTA Malappuram also.

2. Petitioner herein is the RC owner of a stage carriage bearing

registration No. KL-34B 596. Petitioner procured another vehicle bearing

registration No. KL -48 G 8704 in his name. The present vehicle, which is

under permit, is 2011 model vehicle and the later one is a 2014 model

vehicle. Hence, he applied for replacement of the earlier vehicle with the

later model vehicle. When the application was submitted, the respondent

insisted for clearance certificate from the financier or NOC from the

concerned officer to be enclosed along with the application. Aggrieved by

this, petitioner has approached this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to section

51(6) and Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that both the

provisions do not insist for production of NOC.

4. On the other hand, learned senior Government Pleader relied on

Rule 174 (2) (d) which relates to the breach of the terms and conditions

with respect to the application filed under section 51 (6) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. Respondent has a specific contention that no such application

has been filed nor such application is pending. However, the precise case

of the petitioner is that though the application was tendered, it was not

accepted since it was not accompanied by the NOC.

5. Learned senior Government pleader also submitted that, even

before the date of Ext.P3 application, objection dated 1/11/2019 was

received from the financier objecting to the replacement of the vehicle

stating that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and that vehicle was in their

possession pursuant to the order in the arbitration proceedings. It was

requested that if any application for replacement was sought for, objector

shall also be given an opportunity of being heard.

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

petitioner to tender a Ext.P3 application before the respondents within a

period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. if the

above application is otherwise in order, it shall be processed and it shall be

considered for replacement with specific notice to the financier. After giving

notice to the objector to place on record his objection in writing,concerned

respondent shall place the matter before the RTA as mentioned in the

instructions given through the Government Pleader that since serious

objections are there, it would be appropriate for the RTA to hear the matter.

Entire procedure shall be completed by the RTA within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the meeting could not

be convened, due to reasons beyond the control of the RTA, decision shall

be taken by paper circulation under section 130 of the Rules with reference

to the objections raised by the financier.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

  dpk                                                SUNIL THOMAS

                                                        JUDGE




                             APPENDIX
  PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

  EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED
                       TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.06.2019.

  EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE
                       KL-48 G 8704.

  EXHIBIT P3           TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
                       REPLACEMENT DATED 10.02.2021.