IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32786 of 2006(C) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.B.ABDUL SALAM, MANATHPEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, THRIKKAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA- R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32786/2006 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 28/03/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 29/06/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/10/2006 IN M.V.A.A.NO.243/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 32786 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 8, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was granted a regular permit on 27.1.2005, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P1 as confirmed by Ext.P3. 2. By Ext.P1 the permit granted was revoked for the reason that the petitioner did not produce current records within the time prescribed under sec.159(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. He filed an appeal before the Tribunal and that was also rejected by Ext.P3. 3. Admittedly, the current records were not produced either within one month of the grant, nor did the petitioner seek extension of time as provided in sec.159 of the Act. It was for that reason, by Ext.P1 dated 28.3.2006, the grant made on 27.1.2005 was revoked. 4. Petitioner contends that he was not communicated of the grant made on 27.1.2005 and that therefore there is no justification for concluding that he did not produce the current records in time. This contention of the petitioner has been WP(C) 32786 of 2006 2 negatived by the authorities concerned. The Tribunal, on facts, has also found that on 27.1.2005 the grant was made in the presence of the counsel who appeared for the petitioner and therefore that amounts to communication. It was also found by the Tribunal that the copy of the order was despatched to the petitioner on 22.4.2005 and that endorsement to that effect was found in the file maintained in the office of the respondents in the ordinary course of their business. 4. Yet another ground that impressed the Tribunal is that long after the grant was made on 27.1.2005, petitioner himself made an application to the RTA on 6.2.2006 stating that on his application a permit was granted on 27.1.2005 and that the proceedings had not been communicated to him. According to the Tribunal even thereafter the petitioner did not produce the current records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the plea that the proceedings of the RTA granting permit on 27.l.2005 was not communicated. As I have already noticed, from the findings of the Tribunal in Ext.P3, there is constructive service of communication of the proceedings dated 27.1.2005. Apart WP(C) 32786 of 2006 3 from that, the Tribunal has also concluded that the proceedings were also despatched to the petitioner. In addition to these two reasons, the Tribunal has also concluded that atleast on 6.2.2006 when the petitioner made an application, he was aware of the grant. If that be so, there is failure on the part of the petitioner in producing the current records within the time specified under sec.159(2) of the Act. Therefore Ext.P1, as confirmed by Ext.P3, is unassailable and the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-