Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
SONY KURIAKOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9457 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Prasad Chandran
For the Respondents: Sri. M.A.Joseph Manavalan, Smt. Bea Mary Benny, Sri. Joseph C.J., Sri. Headson P.J., Sri. Ananthakrishnan R., Smt. O.M Shalina – DSGI, Sri. Appu - GP
Entitlement to vehicle permit renewal upheld despite blacklisting under Motor Vehicles Act provisions.
Headnote:The petitioner, the registered owner of a vehicle hypothecated with a financier, faced blacklisting due to loan default, prompting a writ petition for permit renewal. The court referenced prior judgments affirming entitlement to permit renewal despite blacklisting under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner to allow permit renewal and tax payment, asserting this did not erase the blacklisting.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s vehicle blacklisted due to loan default, seeks permit renewal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court hears arguments regarding renewal rights despite blacklisting. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of Heavy goods carriage (Tipper) bearing Registration No.KL- 63/H-1397. The said vehicle was hypothecated with the 3rd respondent financier. Since there was default in repayment of the loan installments, the 3rd respondent preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kottayam. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P3 order, blacklisted the vehicle and the same has been endorsed in the Vahan site. The petitioner thereafter applied for renewal of fitness.
2. This Court, by order dated 25.03.2025, directed the 1st respondent to renew the the vehicle provisionally and subject to further orders from this Court.
3. The petitioner states that he is entitled to renewal of the permit notwithstanding the blacklisting. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment dated 06.07.2022 in W.P.(C) No.13176 of 2022 wherein this Court directed the RTO therein to renew the permit notwithstanding the blacklisting and to accept the tax of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, it was held that the blacklisting cannot be ordered to be omitted.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already given a declaration under Section 51 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to renew the permit of the petitioner’s vehicle and to permit him to pay the tax. However, it is made clear that this shall not be construed as an order to erase the blacklisting.
