Rama Padiyar vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 7076 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.3973 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER/S:

                RAMA PADIYAR
                AGED 55 YEARS
                S/O.GOKUL DAS, HOUSE NO.10.565, AMARAVATHI, FORT
                KOCHI, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 001

                BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
                ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
                KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030

      2         THE SECRETARY
                REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE
                P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030



                SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3973 OF 2021(V)         2




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage

Carriage bearing Registration No.KL-07/BG-4600 plying in

the route Eroor to Aluva. The permit was valid upto

12.01.2020. The vehicle was purchased incurring finance

from a Credit Co-operative Society, Ernakulam. He filed an

application for renewal of basic permit, within time. The

contention of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner

had applied for NOC from the financier, no reply has been

received and in the light of it, it should be presumed that

NOC has been granted under Section 51(7) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

application has not been taken up and considered which

causes irreparable injury to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on

instructions, submitted that, though the notice was issued

to the petitioner twice, he did not turn up and it is also

submitted that certain revenue expenditure is pending.

Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the

petition by directing the first respondent to take up and

consider the application and pass appropriate orders after

giving notice to the financier and on being satisfied that the

petitioner has cleared all the revenue expenditure due and

pass appropriate orders, within six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, for any reason, the

meeting could not be convened due to reasons beyond the

control of the Regional Transport Authority, it shall be

considered by adopting procedure under Rule 130 of the

Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

LEK

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-07 BG

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 18.7.2019

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 301.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.2.2021

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23608/2020 DATED 14.11.2020