SAJITH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 26.6.2015 in WP.(C) Nos. 15360 and 16032/15. The short facts involved in these Writ Petitions would disclose that the appellant is the permit holder in respect of a vehicle bearing Regn. No. KL -08 W 9300 conducting service on the circular route Palakkad -Palakkad, the permit being valid till 22.12.2015. He is also the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased on hire purchase basis from M/s. Raja Murugan Finance, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16032/2015, who is hereinafter referred to as the financier. Necessary endorsement in that regard was also made.

(2.) The appellant submitted an application before the Secretary, R.T.A. on 12.2.2015 for replacement of the vehicle. The Secretary, R.T.A. called upon the financier to give a no objection certificate (NOC) for enabling the appellant to replace the vehicle with another vehicle in the regular permit issued in his favour. The financier submitted an objection on 16.3.2015 refusing to grant NOC on the ground that there had been default on the part of the appellant in remitting the hire charges. The appellant had filed W.P.(C) No. 6928/2015 before this Court raising a contention that for replacing the vehicle, no objection certificate from the financier is not required. This Court by judgment dated 6.3.2015 directed the Transport Authorities to consider the claim raised by the petitioner in the light of S. 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act). The financier took possession of the vehicle on 23.4.2015. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, the Secretary, R.T.A. allowed the application of the appellant as per order dated 12.5.2015 directing replacement of the vehicle on condition of production of NOC from the financier and remittance of tax arrears in respect of the outgoing vehicle. The financier challenged the said order by filing W.P.(C) No. 16032/2015.

(3.) The appellant in W.P.(C) No. 15360/2015 challenged the very same order dated 12.5.2015 which imposes on him a condition to produce the NOC from the financier and sought for a direction to allow replacement of the old vehicle with a new vehicle without producing NOC from the financier.