Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
BINUKUMAR D – Appellant
Versus
JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1101 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SHRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS, SMT.S.R.REMYA, SRI.C.M.EBRAHIM, SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN, SHRI.JERRYMON ABRAHAM, SMT.NISHMMA JAMES, SHRI.ASHIQ HUSSAIN U.
For the Respondents: SHRI.HEMANTH HARI, SMT.SETHU S. KRISHNA, SRI.C.S.APPU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Registering authority has discretion under Section 51(9) MV Act to renew permit despite financier NOC refusal after hearing applicant.
Headnote:Clause (a) of sub-section (9) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the registering authority, upon application for permit renewal of a vehicle under hire purchase agreement where financier refuses No Objection Certificate, to renew or refuse after hearing the applicant. Petitioner, owner of goods carrier under loan default, applied for permit renewal; authority insisted on financier NOC. Court finds authority holds discretion to decide despite financier objection. Issues framed as whether authority can reject renewal solely on financier refusal under Section 51(9). Ratio: Registering authority must apply mind to financier objections and decide on renewal entitlement, as held in prior precedent. Writ petition disposed; authority directed to reconsider expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's vehicle under hire purchase; permit renewal blocked by noc demand. (Para 1) |
| 2. section 51(9) grants authority discretion to renew despite financier refusal post-hearing. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the driver-cum-registered owner of a goods carrier (Tata tipper) bearing registration No.KL-24-A-1234. Ext.P1 is the copy of the registration certificate. The petitioner had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent financier under a hire purchase agreement and by hypothecating the said motor vehicle. The petitioner defaulted payment. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of permit. However, the 1st respondent, by Ext.P4, directed the petitioner to produce the No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent financier for renewing the permit. However, the 2nd respondent did not issue No Objection Certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs :
"i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order commanding the 1st respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit in respect of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-24-A-1234, dehorse the objection of the 2nd respondent financier.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Clause (a) of sub-section (9) ofSection 51of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988provides that, on receipt of an application for the renewal of permit or for the issue of duplicate certificate of registration or for assignment of a new registration mark in respect of a vehicle which is held under the said agreement, the appropriate authority may, subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a case where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either renew or refuse to renew the permit or issue or refuse to issue the duplicate certificate of registration or assign or refuse to assign a new registration mark. In Shabu Sukumaran v. Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram [ 2018 (2) KLT 219 ], this Court held that even in a case in which financier has objected renewal of permit, registering authority has discretion to renew a permit after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, merely for the reason that the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for under sub-section (7) of , the registering authority cannot reject an application for renewal of contract carriage permit or insist for NOC from the financier. Since certain discretion has been vested with the registering authority, in view of the provisions under sub-section (9) of of the Act, the registering authority has to apply its mind to the objections, if any, raised by the financier and take an appropriate decision as to whether despite such objections of the financier, the applicant is entitled for renewal of permit. 4. Accordingly, the 1strespondent Joint RTO, the registering authority, is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and the 2ndrespondent financier, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
