AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Murali Purushothaman, J
Petitioner is the owner of a motor cab (taxy) bearing registration No.KL-19-E-9375. According to the petitioner, he purchased the said vehicle availing loan from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal of its permit. Petitioner submits that the said application is not considered for want of No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the request submitted to the 2nd respondent for issuing NOC. Since there was no reply, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 declaration before the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the provisions contained in Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the 1st respondent has not renewed the permit.
The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and submits that on receipt of notice pursuant to Ext.P2, an objection has been filed before the Regional Transport Authority.
Since Ext.P2 application for renewal of permit is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the 1st respondent has to consider Ext.P2 and pass final orders after considering the objection of the 2nd respondent also.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application for renewal of permit, with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder and taking into account the objection filed by the 2nd respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.