High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-07Disposed of with directions to consider renewal...

Mary Deena Joy v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions: if the petitioner submits applications along with a declaration regarding No Objection Certificate of the financier, the 2nd respondent, Regional Transport Authority, shall consider Ext.P8 applications in both writ petitions in accordance with law with notice to the financier; the 2nd respondent shall take speedy action and decide within six weeks.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to consider renewal applications upon declaration of No Objection from the financier, with notice to the financier, and to decide within six weeks; speedy action due to current non-use of two goods carriages.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mary Deena Joy

Respondents

Joint Regional Transport Officer, The Sub Regional Transport Office, Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious Memorial Shopping Complex, Perumpadana, North Parur, Ernakulam
Regional Transport Authority, The Sub Regional Transport Office, Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious Memorial Shopping Complex, Perumpadana, North Parur, Ernakulam
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Opp. Hotel International Kanaka Damodar Building, Veekshanam Road, Kacherippady, Cochin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.A. Abhilash
• Bobby K. Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• Sreejith V.S., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 19628/2024 and 19661/2024) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, decided on 7 June 2024 by a Single Judge, deal with renewal of Goods Carriage permits for two vehicles (KL-42R-1635 and KL-42R-1857) hypothecated to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The petitioner contends that for renewal of permits an No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the financier is required; the 3rd respondent received applications on 24.04.2024 but did not issue the NOC. Section 51(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that if there is no response within seven days, the NOC can be deemed issued, enabling renewal applications to proceed in the absence of NOC. The respondent authority, however, has not acted. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence of sending a proper request to the financier; if such proof is produced, the matter can be considered with notice to the financier under Section 51(8). The Court cites Jayamon v. Regional Transport Authority, Cherthala (2015 (2) KHC 685) to hold that Section 51 does not mandate a preexisting NOC, only a request and a declaration if no response. The Court directs the petitioner to submit a declaration along with Ext.P8 applications; the 2nd respondent must consider the renewals in accordance with law with notice to the financier and decide within six weeks, given the two vehicles cannot currently be used. Exhibits P1–P11 in the appendices reflect registration, permits, representations, receipts, and related judgments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 51(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 51(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that for renewal of permits of two Goods Carriages hypothecated to Kotak Mahindra Bank, the 3rd respondent must issue an No Objection Certificate (NOC). The applications were received on 24.04.2024 but no NOC issued. Section 51(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides deemed issuance if no response within seven days, enabling renewal proceedings in the absence of an NOC. Petitioner submits copies of applications along with declarations to the 2nd respondent. The bank’s lack of response is asserted as the basis for renewal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence that a proper request was sent to the financier for NOC. If the petitioner furnishes the required documents to show such a request, the issue may be considered with notice to the financier and decision taken in compliance with Section 51(8) of the Act.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jayamon v. Regional Transport Authority, Cherthala and another	2015 (2) KHC 685	Positive	Court relied on Jayamon to hold that Section 51 does not mandate the production of an NOC; it requires only a request to the financier and, in case of no response, a declaration before the authority.
WP(C) No. 6723 of 2015	WP(C) No. 6723 of 2015	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited in Appendix as Exhibit P11; referenced but not discussed or applied in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mary Deena Joy v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` # **`FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19628 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MARY DEENA JOY, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. XAVIER JOY, HOUSE NO. 13/923, CKANDATHIPARABIL, R K PILLAI ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682005 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.A.ABHILASH BOBBY K.PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ABDUL JALEEL MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMPADANA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513`** - **`2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ABDUL JALEEL MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMPADANA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 683513`** - **`3 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED OPP. HOTEL INTERNATIONAL KANAKA DAMODAR BUILDING, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KACHERIPPADY, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN – 682035`** ## **`SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).19661/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19661 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MARY DEENA JOY, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. XAVIER JOY, HOUSE NO. 13/923 CKANDATHIPARABIL, R K PILLAI ROADTHOPPUMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682005 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.A.ABHILASH BOBBY K.PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ABDUL JALEEL MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMPADANA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513`** - **`2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ABDUL JALEEL MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMPADANA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 683513`** - **`3 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED OPP. HOTEL INTERNATIONAL KANAKA DAMODAR BUILDING, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KACHERIPPADY, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – 682035`** ``` SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).19628/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2024 [W.P.(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024] The issues arising in both these writ petitions are the same. In W.P.(C) No.19628/2024, the grievance of the petitioner is relating to the Goods Carriage bearing registration No.KL-42R-1635. In W.P.(C) No.19661/2024, the grievance relates to the Goods Carriage bearing registration No.KL-42R-1857. 2. The petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicles were hypothecated to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The vehicles have Goods Carriage Permit. For the purpose of renewing the Permit, No Objection Certificate from the 3[rd] respondent is required. Hence, the petitioner submitted applications before the 3[rd] respondent. The applications were received by the 3[rd] respondent on 24.04.2024, but the 3[rd] respondent did not issue NOC. ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 3. As per Section 51(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, if no response is received from the Bank within seven days from the receipt of an application for No Objection Certificate, it can be deemed that the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the 3[rd] respondent. So the petitioner made representations along with applications before the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of permit in the absence of NOC from the 3[rd] respondent. But the Regional Transport Authority has not considered the applications and no action has been taken so far, contends the petitioner. 4. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that a proper request has been sent to the financier by the petitioner for issuance of NOC. In the circumstances, if the petitioner produces ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` necessary documents to show that such a request was made, then the issue can be considered with notice to the financier and decision can be taken in accordance with law in compliance of Section 51(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 application in both the writ petitions for renewal of permit in respect of the Goods Carriages owned by the petitioner. The petitioner would assert that applications were sent to the financier for issuance of NOC. The financier has not responded to the applications. The applications were received by the 3[rd] respondent on 24.04.2024. In such circumstances, in view of the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Act, 1988, the petitioner need to give only copy of applications along with a declaration to respondents 1 and 2 ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` and respondents 1 and 2 have to consider the applications for renewals of permit submitted by the petitioner. 7. This Court considered a similar issue in Jayamon v. Regional Transport Authority, Cherthala and another [2015 (2) KHC 685]. This Court held that Section 51 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not mandate production of No Objection Certificate from a financier and it speaks only of a request being made to the financier and on no response, a declaration needs to be filed before the concerned authority. 8. Considering the afore facts, I am of the view that if the petitioner submits a declaration in this regard before respondents 1 and 2, they should consider the applications of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits applications along with declaration regarding No Objection Certificate of the financier, then the 2[nd] respondent-Regional Transport Authority shall consider ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` Ext.P8 applications in both the writ petitions submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law with notice to the financier. Taking into consideration the fact that two Goods Carriages cannot be put to use by the petitioner now, the 2[nd] respondent shall take speedy action and take appropriate decision, as early as possible, within a period of six weeks. Sd/N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19661/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-42-R-1857 Exhibit P2HE TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE STATE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-42-R-1857 DATED 24.05.2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-04-2024 MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 26.04.2024 Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT OF EXHIBIT P4 Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT (FORM P.R.A) DATED 13/05/2024 Exhibit P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 11.05.2024 Exhibit P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT OF EXHIBIT P8 Exhibit P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C).NO. 6723 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 31.03.2015 ``` ``` WP(C) Nos.19628 and 19661 of 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19628/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-42-R-1635 Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE STATE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-42-R-1635 DATED 24.05.2022 Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-04-2024 MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2024 Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT OF EXHIBIT P4 Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT (FORM P.R.A) DATED 13/05/2024 Exhibit P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 11.05.2024 Exhibit P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT OF EXHIBIT P9 Exhibit P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C).NO. 6723 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 31.03.2015 ```