Siljo Abraham vs Sub Regional Transport Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 11593 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11593 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Siljo Abraham vs Sub Regional Transport Officer on 23 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 16286 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SILJO ABRAHAM
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O ABRAHAM, MAROTTICKAL HOUSE , EDAPPADY. P.O,
         BHARANANGANAM.P.O, PALA,
         KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686578

         BY ADVS.
         AYSHA YOUSEFF
         MOLLY JACOB
         JOBI.A.THAMPI
         C.M.EBRAHIM
         SHOUKATH HUSAIN
         AKHEELA FARZANA


RESPONDENTS:

    1    SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
         PALA MOOZHAYIL BUILDINGS, ERATTUPETTA ROAD,
         PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686578
    2    CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY
         LIMITED
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
         PALA BRANCH, 3A, 2ND FLOOR,
         PULICKAL TOWERS, PON]NMNAM ROAD,
         PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575


         SMT. DEEPA V-GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.16286 of 2024
                                2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

The petitioner is the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki

Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.KL-68-203. In 2018,

the petitioner purchased the above second hand car having

contract carriage permit. Later, the petitioner availed

hypothecation facility from the 2nd respondent with effect from

09.03.2019. Immediately after the purchase, the petitioner

started operating taxi service on rental basis.

2. Though the petitioner was promptly making the

repayment of the loan amount as per the schedule, he was

unable to make remittance of certain instalments due to

Covid-19 pandemic. Despite the fact that the tenure of the

loan will expire only on 27.08.2024, the recovery agents

deputed by the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner that

unless and until the entire amount is paid in lump-sum, the

petitioner would face with dire consequences and they will re-

possess the vehicle by force. While so, on 07.03.2024,

Ext.P3 contract carriage permit expired. In order to renew the

permit, the petitioner has completed the requisite

maintenance work so as to produce the car before the 1st

respondent for testing.

3. When the petitioner contacted the 2 nd respondent

and requested them to provide No Objection Certificate for the

purpose of renewing the Ext.P3 permit, the 2nd respondent

had been putting lame excuses and purposefully delayed the

submission of the application for renewal of permit. The

petitioner sent a registered letter requesting the 2 nd

respondent to issue the NOC for renewal of Ext.P3 permit

which would expire on 07.03.2024.

4. But the 2nd respondent took an adamant stand that

they will not issue the NOC unless the entire dues are

cleared. Since the 2nd respondent is playing dirty game, the

petitioner approached the 1st respondent by submitting Ext.P5

application detailing the facts and requested to renew Ext.P3

permit. As per Section 51 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the

competent authority has ample power and authority to renew

the permit, de-horse the objection, if any, raised by the

financier. Despite the receipt of Ext.P5 application, the

1st respondent has not cared to redress the grievance of the

petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the 1 st

respondent.

6. The petitioner has sent registered notice to the 2 nd

respondent seeking to issue No Objection Certificate. The 2nd

respondent has not responded to the notice within reasonable

time. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent has a statutory

duty to consider the issue.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

1st respondent-Sub Regional Transport Officer to consider

Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders thereon, within a period of one month, after

giving notice to the 2nd respondent, if necessary.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16286/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE NO.35/3817/2004 DTD.12/ 12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF MARUTHI SUZUKI SWIFT DEZIRE CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-68-203 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT NO P.CO. 35/315/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05-03- 2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST/APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS REGARD 02.04.2024 Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P5 APPLICATION