The petitioner is aggrieved with the non- consideration of the claim for renewal of permit. The renewal of permit was rejected for reason of there being no NOC from the financier, who is impleaded as the third respondent herein. 2. The petitioner was before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying on the provisions of Section 51 (6) & (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; directed the authority to consider the renewal in accordance with the above provisions. The provisions definitely require an NOC to be produced by the permit holder in case of renewal application. However, it also mandates that, if such NOC is not issued or a communication in that respect, to the financier, is not responded to within seven days, the authority W.P.(C) No. 25393 of 2014 (Y) 2 can consider the application on the basis of a declaration made by the petitioner with respect to such request having been made to the financier. After Ext.P1, Ext.P2 was issued on 28.05.2014 were notice was directed to be issued to the financier.
3. In any event, now the financier has appeared before this Court and objected to the renewal application. This Court cannot issue a mandamus to the official respondents to grant the renewal as such, despite there being a declaration before the authority. The authority considering the renewal application will have to necessarily hear the financier also.
4. In such circumstance, the petitioner and the third respondent are directed to appear before the second respondent on 19.12.2014. No separate notice shall be issued to either parties. The authority shall consider the claim of either parties and pass an W.P.(C) No. 25393 of 2014 (Y) 3 order, in accordance with law, within a period of 'two weeks' from that date.
The writ petition is disposed of.
AMV/11/12/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE