JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who has availed a vehicle loan from the IndusInd Bank Limited, is before this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue No Objection Certificate and duly signed Form No.35 in respect of vehicle No.KL-63A-4807 as provided under Rule 61 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation on receipt of necessary documents including Form No.35 from respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner states that though the petitioner had availed a vehicle loan from the Bank for purchase of the vehicle, the entire outstanding loan amount has been repaid. Now, the endorsement of hypothecation has to be removed from the Registration Certificate. Unless respondents 1 and 2 issue No Objection Certificate, the petitioner cannot get the endorsement on Registration Certificate removed. Respondents 1 and 2 are not issuing NOC. 3. Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is submitted that they will not fall under the definition of 'State' contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondents 1 and 2 are not instrumentalites of the State. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. The respondents stated that the petitioner had availed multiple loan facilities. There are two other loan transactions against the property mortgaged by the petitioner. The general lien of Bankers extend to the hypothecated vehicle of the petitioner, contended the Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 3rd respondent. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of clearing off the vehicle loan, respondents 1 and 2 are not issuing No Objection Certificate for removal of the endorsement of hypothecation from the Registration Certificate. Respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there are other loans outstanding and payable by the petitioner and the Banker’s general lien would extend to hypothecation given to the Bank. 7. Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with the special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement etc. Respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there are other loans outstanding and payable by the petitioner and the Banker’s general lien would extend to hypothecation given to the Bank. 7. Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with the special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement etc. provides that where an application for registration of a motor vehicle which is held under a hire purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement is made, the registering authority shall make an entry in the Certificate of Registration regarding the existence of the said agreement. Sub-section (3) of Section 51 provides that any entry made under Section 51(1) or Section 51(2) may be cancelled by the last registering authority on proof of the termination of the said agreement by the parties concerned on an application being made in such form as the Central Government may prescribe and an intimation in this behalf shall be sent to the original registering authority if the last registering authority is not the original registering authority. 8. No entry regarding the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle which is held under the said agreement shall be made in the Certificate of Registration except with the written consent of the person whose name has been specified in the Certificate of Registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement. 9. Sub-section (5) of Section 51 directs that where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle from the registered owner owing to the default of the registered owner under the provisions of the said agreement and that the registered owner refuses to deliver the Certificate of Registration or has absconded, such authority may, after giving the registered owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make and notwithstanding that the Certificate of Registration is not produced before it, cancel the certificate and issue a fresh Certificate of Registration in the name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement. 10. 10. Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority for the renewal of a permit or for issue of duplicate Certificate of Registration or for assignment of a new registration mark or removal of the vehicle to another State or at the time of conversion of the vehicle from one class to another or for issue of no objection certificate under Section 48 or for change of residence or place of business or for the alteration of vehicle, make an application to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement, for the issue of a No Objection Certificate. 11. Within seven days of the receipt of an application under Section 51(6), the financier may issue, or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reason for refusal to issue the certificate to the applicant within a period of seven days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier. 12. Section 51(5) would indicate that where the person with whom agreement has been made satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle owing to the default of the registered owner and that the registered owner refuses to deliver certificate of registration or has absconded, then the authority has power to cancel the certificate or registration and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the agreement. In other cases, if the financier refuses to issue an NOC within seven days of the receipt of an application made by the registered owner under sub-section (6) or where the financier fails to communicate the reason for refusal within seven days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier. 13. Where the financier communicates the reasons for refusal of the certificate within seven days, the authority has the discretion to renew or refuse to renew a permit, to issue or refuse to issue duplicate certificate for registration, or assign or refuse to assign new registration mark. 14. 13. Where the financier communicates the reasons for refusal of the certificate within seven days, the authority has the discretion to renew or refuse to renew a permit, to issue or refuse to issue duplicate certificate for registration, or assign or refuse to assign new registration mark. 14. Section 51 would indicate that even though the person with whom an agreement is made refuses to issue No Objection Certificate, the authority has the discretion to take a decision in favour of the registered owner with intimation to the financier. 15. In the judgment in Shabu Sukumaran v. Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram [ 2018 (2) KLT 219 ], this Court has held that even in a case in which financier has objected renewal of permit, registering authority has discretion to renew a permit after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 16. The Central Government has framed the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 61 of the said Rules provides for termination of hire purchase agreement. Rule 61 reads as follows:- 61. Termination of hire-purchase agreements, etc. — (1) An application for making an entry of termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation referred to in sub-section (3) of section 51 shall be made in Form 35 duly signed by the registered owner of the vehicle and the financier, and shall be accompanied by the certificate of registration and the appropriate fee as specified in rule 81. (2) The application for the issue of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 shall be made in Form 36 and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in rule 81. (3) Where the registered owner has refused to deliver the certificate of registration to the financier or has absconded then the registering authority shall issue a notice to the registered owner of the vehicle in Form 37. Therefore, if a registered owner wants to make an entry of termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, an application shall be made in Form-35 duly signed by the registered owner of the vehicle and the financier. 17. Therefore, if a registered owner wants to make an entry of termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, an application shall be made in Form-35 duly signed by the registered owner of the vehicle and the financier. 17. In the case of the petitioner, the financier has refused to issue NOC presumably on the ground that though the petitioner cleared the liability in respect of the vehicle in question, the petitioner has other liabilities in respect of other financial advances, which are remaining due to the respondents 1 and 2. The argument of respondents 1 and 2 is that they have a general lien available to the Bankers over the vehicle in question and that as long as those other loans remain unpaid, respondents 1 and 2 can refuse to issue NOC and refuse to sign Form-35. 18. The right of a Banker under the principles of Banker's lien is not under question or challenge. In the petitioner's case, it is the statutory requirements which are relevant. When the Statute requires NOC of respondents 1 and 2 for cancellation of endorsement, the Bank cannot refuse an NOC relying on the principles of Banker's general lien. This is because the endorsement made in a certificate of registration regarding hypothecation or hire purchase, is one made as per the requirements mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The cancellation of such endorsement would also fall under the statutory provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot advance the excuse of Banker's lien in order to defeat the requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. 19. When the petitioner has repaid the entire the liability under the hire purchase / hypothecation in respect of his vehicle, then cancellation of NOC cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that Banker's general lien would extend to the vehicle. The cancellation of endorsement in the Registration Certificate will not affect in any manner the Banker's lien over the vehicle, if such lien exists. When disputed, whether such lien exists or not is a matter to be decided by competent civil courts or under any other permissible adjudicatory mechanism. 20. The cancellation of endorsement in the Registration Certificate will not affect in any manner the Banker's lien over the vehicle, if such lien exists. When disputed, whether such lien exists or not is a matter to be decided by competent civil courts or under any other permissible adjudicatory mechanism. 20. Therefore, I find that the reasons for refusal of respondents 1 and 2 to issue NOC or their objection in cancellation of endorsement, cannot stand the scrutiny of law when the petitioner has admittedly cleared his liability in respect of the vehicle in question. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation on receipt of necessary documents. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue No Objection Certificate and duly signed Form No.35 in respect of the petitioner's vehicle No.KL-63A-4807 as provided under Rule 61 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.