JAYAMON Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. KL 06 A 2585 with finance from the 2nd respondent. Agreement with the 2nd respondent was duly endorsed in the registration certificate. The petitioner applied and obtained a Goods Carriage permit, on which the vehicle was being operated. Subsequently, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the Goods carriage permit by Ext. P6, the same was declined to be considered, since No Objection Certificate (NOC) of the financier was not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') does not require production of an NOC and it speaks only of a request being made to the financier and on no response, a declaration duly filed before the authority under the Act; which the petitioner has complied with. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks that his application be considered and the permit be renewed.

(2.) This Court had issued notice to the 2nd respondent who appears and contends that, there is default in the finance availed by the petitioner. If there was default, then, on a request being made to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent ought to have either rejected the petitioner's request or intimated the registering authority about the default committed. Neither of these have been done by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) A reading of Section 51 of the Act would indicate that sub-section (6) provides for a protection to the financier insofar as mandating an application to the financier with whom the registered owner has entered into an agreement, for the issuance of an NOC, before inter alia applying for renewal of a permit. Sub-section (6) provides that within seven days, financier may issue or refuse to issue such certificate which has to be communicated in writing to the applicant. Sub-section (6) also provides that in the event of no refusal being communicated, it shall be deemed that the financier has no objection.