AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above titled writ petitions are disposed of by one and the single judgment, as the point of law involved is an identical one.

(2.) The petitioners in these petitions are the transporters and operate public goods carriers in the State and outside. The vehicles plied by them were hypothecated to the respondent-Banks. Under the agreement of hypothecation the endorsement of hire purchase was made in the registration certificates in accordance with the provisions of S.31-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 'hereinafter referred to as the Act.' The petitioners have also obtained route permits valid up to the dates specified in the writ petitions. After the expiry of the dates of route permits the vehicles could be plied only if the route permits were renewed under the Act, for which procedure has been laid down in Rule 6.29 of the Act. As the petitioners could not pay the instalments to the respondent-Banks, no objection certificates were not issued in their favour in terms of S.31-A of the Act. It is alleged by the petitioners that the provisions of S.31-A(1)(5)(a to d) were unconstitutional being contrary to the provisions of Art.14 and 19 of the Constitution of India as enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to special justice in terms of 20 point economic programme as promulgated by the Government of India, and therefore, entitled to the renewal of the route permits for plying of the vehicles, the business from which they earn their bread and butter and feed their children. It is submitted that aforesaid provisions as contained in S.31-A(1)(5) (a to d) of the Act, are discriminatory which confer upon the respondents unfettered powers to withhold the no objection certificate or get the vehicles transferred to its own name. It is further submitted that the law was violative of the Constitution of India as it interfered with the right of the petitioners to carry on any business according to their choice, besides praying for the quashing of the provisions of S.31-A clauses (a to d), the petitioners pray that the respondents-Banks be directed to grant moratorium to the petitioners in payment of loan amount and issue of no objection certificate for renewal of the route permits with a further direction to them to recover the loan amount without any interest for the periods during which the vehicles did not ply under the circumstances stated in the petitions.

(3.) In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent 3 it is submitted that according to S.31-A(1) of the Act, once an entry was made in the certificate of registration regarding hire purchase agreement or hypothecation of vehicles, the rights of the parties are governed by S.31-A of the Act. It is submitted that S.31-A of the Act is legal, valid and intra vines of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the concept of S.31-A of the Act is that if financier deliberately omits to issue no objection certificate, the registering authority is well within its rights to renew the permit if the permit holder satisfies that the financier had deliberately refused to issue the no objection certificate without any sufficient cause.