Shaffique, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.Harikumar learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader. Petitioner has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 23.09.2014 in W.P.
(C) 24653 of 2014.
2. The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by non consideration of Ext.P7 application by 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, he had made a proper application in terms of Section 51(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but despite filing of the same on 19.09.2014, no steps had been taken by the 1st respondent to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
3. The facts involved in the case shows that the petitioner, having an Hire Purchase agreement with 2nd respondent, submitted an application for getting a 'No Objection Certificate' (for short 'NOC') for renewal of the permit. Since NOC was not received within the time stipulated, he made an application under Section 51(8) of the Act seeking renewal of the permit. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent had objected to the request of the petitioner inter alia stating that the NOC can be sought for under various circumstances and the petitioner had not specifically stated that it was for the purpose of renewal of permit. Therefore, such request for NOC can never be the basis for an application under Section 51(8) of the Act.
4. Learned Single Judge after considering the matter found that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to circumvent the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and has approached for renewal of the permit without concurrence of the financier. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to submit a proper application under Section 51(8) of the Act and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the same in accordance with law after notice to the financier.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention that he submitted a proper application in terms of Ext.P7 and it was open for the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders. According to him, he had filed an application with all necessary particulars.
6. This fact is opposed by learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. According to them, the application for NOC was submitted without mentioning any particular reason. NOC can be granted for different purposes, i.e. for renewal of permit, termination of hypothecation, duplication of the registration certificate. None of these particulars of requirement was specifically mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioner. For that reason itself the application under Section 51 (8) cannot be considered. Learned counsel also submitted that the issue as to whether the submission of application under Section 51(8) was maintainable for compliance of necessary particulars is also a matter which requires to be considered.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since the petitioner has a case that he had complied with all requirements under Section 51(8) of the Act for proper consideration of his application, under the said provision, it is all the more necessary for the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders. If the financier has a case that the application is not in accordance with law, i.e. the request made for NOC did not specifically mention any particular reason, it is for the 1st respondent to consider whether the request for NOC was proper or not. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no necessity to call upon the petitioner to submit a fresh application. It is enough to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment of learned Single Judge, directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties and an opportunity of being heard. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/17/11