Madras High Court
R.M.Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 December, 2015
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :17.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P(MD).No.1919 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011
R.M.Krishnan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by District Collector,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Pudukkottai District.
3.P.Nirmala ... Respondents
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of
writ calling for the records relating to Proceedings No.30067/A1/2010 dated
10.08.2010 of the second respondent and to quash the same and further
directing the second respondent to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in
the R.C.Book of the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.TN 55 D 1590
without insisting the production of no objection certificate from the third
respondent.
!For petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan
^For R.1& 2 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
For R.3 : No appearance
:ORDER
There is no representation for the third respondent even though the matter is listed under the caption for orders today.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 10.08.2010 through which the petitioner was directed to obtain ?No Objection Certificate? from the financier, namely, the third respondent for cancellation of endorsement of hypothecation in the R.C.Book bearing Registration No.TN 55 D 1590.
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he availed loan from the third respondent to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for buying a mini-lorry and consequently purchased the said vehicle and registered the same with hypothecation endorsement in the R.C.book. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has completely discharged by paying the loan amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the third respondent including the interest. It is further stated that inspite of repaying the loan amount, the third respondent refused to issue a ?No Objection Certificate? for cancelling the hypothecation endorsement. Thus, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003, in M.L.O.P.No.87/08 before the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai District and by order dated 01.04.2010, the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai District, declared that the petitioner herein has discharged the entire loan amount to the third respondent, who was arrayed as the first defendant therein, and further directed the third respondent herein to issue the ?No Objection Certificate? to the petitioner. Even after the order passed by the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai District and inspite of receiving a notice sent by the petitioner through his lawyer dated 05.07.2010, the third respondent has not come forward to issue a ?No Objection Certificate?. Therefore, the petitioner made a request to the Regional Transport Officer, on 26.07.2010 to cancel the hypothecation agreement based on the order passed by the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai. However, the present impugned order came to be passed insisting upon the petitioner to produce the ?No Objection Certificate? from the third respondent.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order to the effect that unless ?No Objection Certificate? is produced, the question of cancellation of hypothecation endorsement does not arise.
6. In this writ petition, though notice was ordered to the third respondent and served on her and consequently she engaged a Counsel also, there was no representation for the third respondent, when the matter was posted for hearing on 09.12.2015 and again on 10.12.2015. Consequently, the matter is posted for orders today. Again, there is no representation for the third respondent.
7. Further, perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Court in M.L.O.P.No.87/08, shows that the third respondent herein who was arrayed as the first defendant therein, remained ex parte. Therefore, it is evident that the third respondent is not interested in appearing before the Court and put forth her case. Therefore, this Court, is left with no other option except to accept the contention of the petitioner with regard to the dischargement of the loan, as has been found by the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai in M.L.O.P.No.87 of 2008. When the Sub-Court has specifically directed the third respondent to issue a ?No Objection Certificate?, she ought to have given such Certificate to the petitioner. However, till this date, she has not issued such Certificate and has also not appeared before this Court in this writ petition to put forth her case. Therefore, this Court has to presume that the third respondent is not having any case.
8. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to get hypothecated endorsement in the R.C.book cancelled based on the order issued in M.L.O.P.No.87/08 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai District, dated 01.04.2010.
9. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner seeking for cancellation of hypothecation endorsement and pass appropriate orders, based on the order passed by M.L.O.P.No.87/08 dated 01.04.2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai District. Such exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai District..