IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 6115 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

PRASAD K.R., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, PARVANAM, ERAVUKADU, VADAKKAL P.O, SANTHANAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688003 BY ADVS.

G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA B.R.SINDU V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR AFNA V.P.

REMYA MURALI RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,PALACE ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001 2 SMT.NISHA K MANI, JOINT RTO, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALACE ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001

3 M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM FINANCE & INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, BEACH RD, NEAR PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA, KODIVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001 BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that his application for renewal of permit was rejected on the ground that the

3^rd respondent financier has raised objection to the renewal of permit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law on the point is settled by judgment of this court in Shabu Sukumaran v. Regional Transport Officer, Tvm and others; 2018 (2) KLT 219 where it has been held that even where the financier raised objection, the authorities have discretion to renew the permit after affording an opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that this court followed the judgment of this court in Shabu Sukumaran (supra) in Ext.P9 judgment in W.P(C)

No.42875/2024.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also.

4. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that there are substantial amount due from the petitioner and the matter may be referred for mediation.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, I am of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this court in Shabu Sukumaran (supra).

Paragraphs 8 , 9 and 10 of the judgment in Shabu Sukumaran (supra)

reads thus.

“8. In the instant case, a reading of Ext.P6 order would show that the reasons stated by the 1st respondent registering authority for rejecting the request for renewal of the contract carriage permit are two fold. In the first paragraph of Ext.P6 order, the registering authority, with reference to sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the Act, has stated that the petitioner has not produced a declaration in terms of that sub-section. Thereafter, in the last paragraph of Ext.P6 order, the registering authority has stated that, in view of the objections raised by the 2nd respondent financier, the application for renewal made by the petitioner cannot be allowed.

9. As far as the first reason stated in Ext.P6 order is concerned, sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the Act mandates such a declaration by the applicant, in a case in which despite making a request under sub-section (6) of Section 51, no reply is received from the financier within seven days, as provided under sub- section (7) of Section 51. In the instant case, there is non- compliance of the aforesaid provision. However, since an enquiry has already been conducted by the 1st respondent registering authority, with notice to the 2nd respondent financier, the objection regarding non-compliance of sub-section (8) of Section 51 has no much relevance, inasmuch as, the object of the said provision is only to give notice to the financier as to an application proposed to be made by the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, even in the absence of such a declaration, the matter can be proceeded further, since no prejudice w