High Court of KeralaWP(C)/5657/2015disposed of

K.Reghunathan v. The State Of Kerala

2015-03-20Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5657 of 2015 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- K.REGHUNATHAN AGED 69 YEARS S/O KOCHU KRISHNAN, T.C. 11/748, KRISHNA BHAVAN, MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SRI.ASHOK SURESH RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

3. INDIAN CEMENTS CAPITAL FINANCE LTD., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 695 001 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5657 of 2015 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED 6.2.2015 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED 3.2.2015 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ENVELOPE IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MAILED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.3.2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 5657 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the registering authority, the 2nd respondent herein is not considering Ext.P1 application for renewal of contract carriage permit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the same is covered by a judgment of this Court reported in Reghunathan K v State of Kerala and Others (2009(3) KHC 17). The judgment is with respect to the very same petitioner and the very same vehicle for a previous period.

3. As has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment is that Section 51(9) only prescribes for an application to be made to the financier for a "No Objection Certificate". If no response is received, what is required by the person seeking renewal is a declaration that there was an application made and there is no response. If the petitioner files such a declaration along with

WPC.No.5657/2015 : 2 :

evidence to show that such application has been made, necessarily, the registering authority will have to consider Ext.P1 in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in the aforecited judgment.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is a check report with respect to the vehicle. Definitely the same would have to be satisfied before renewal application is considered. The application shall be considered at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, provided the "check report" is satisfied. Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge