The petitioner had a goods carriage permit which was under hire-purchase agreement with the 3rd respondent. When the period of permit expired, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. The 2nd respondent refused to consider the same on the ground that 'no objection certificate' from the 3rd respondent was not produced by the petitioner. Petitioner approached this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No.15747/06, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application for renewal with notice to the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. It was directed to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. By Ext.P2 order, the petitioner's application for renewal of permit was rejected on the ground that the 3rd respondent has objected to the renewal of the permit, since the petitioner has not cleared the dues under the hire-purchase agreement. Petitioner challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, who by Ext.P3 order, directed the disposal of the application on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity to cure the defects, if any, in the application. Despite that order, the 2nd respondent is not passing orders on the application for renewal is the complaint raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to renew the permit for the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01-R-669 by invoking powers under Section 51(9)() of the Motor Vehicles Act;

ii. Direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4 within a time frame that this Hon'ble court deems fit, proper and equitable;"

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent taking the stand that insofar as 'no objection certificate' from the financier has not been produced, Ext.P2 order already passed still stands good and it is not necessary to pass fresh orders on the application. There is no question of passing fresh order.

3. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would vehemently oppose the petition. According to him, more than rupees two lakhs are still due from the petitioner towards re-payment as per the hire-purchase agreement and therefore the permit cannot be renewed.

4. The petitioner would contend that since as per law, the 2nd respondent has a discretion to renew the permit even if the 3rd respondent has not issued the no objection certificate, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider whether in the circumstances of the case despite the refusal of the 3rd respondent to issue no objection certificate the permit can still be renewed.

5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The law on the subject is contained in sub sections 6 to 9 of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said sub sections read thus:

"51. Special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire-purchase agreement, etc:-

xxxxxxx

(6) The registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of a permit under Section 81 or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration under subsection (14) of Section 41, or for the assignment of a new registration mark.

(7) within seven days of the receipt of a application under sub-section (6), the financier may issue, or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier.

(8) The registered owner shall while applying to the appropriate authority for the renewal of any permit under Section 81, or for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registrat