IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7157 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.BIJUKUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN, 7/53, CHENPANPULLY, KOOTTALA, KUNISSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7157 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was operating a stage carriage on the route Thekkepotta – Palakkad via. Pudukode, Kannambra, Vadakkancherry, Alathur, Tripalur, Kunissery, Koduvayur and Yakkara on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit that was valid till 7.2.2011. The petitioner did not apply for renewal of the regular permit within time, namely 15 days before the expiry of the permit. He however, applied for renewal by submitting Ext.P2 application dated 11.2.2011, 5 days after the expiry of the permit. Along with the said application he also submitted Ext.P5 application for grant of temporary permit under section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority is not entertaining Ext.P5 application for temporary permit on the ground that the application for renewal of the temporary permit was submitted belatedly. The petitioner contends that the delay in applying for temporary permit can be condoned if sufficient W.P(C).No.7157 of 2011 -:2:- cause is shown for the delay. Reliance is placed on Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court wherein it was held that applications for issue of temporary permits made by the applicants, who have belatedly applied for renewal of the regular permit, cannot be rejected on the ground that they have belatedly applied for renewal of the regular permit. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to entertain Ext.P5 application for temporary permit and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal of Ext.P1 permit. Along with Ext.P2 application he has also filed Ext.P3 petition to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal. Along with the said application he has also submitted Ext.P5 application for grant of a temporary permit pending renewal of the regular permit. These facts are not in dispute. This Court has in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments in identical circumstances held that the mere delay in filing applications for renewal is not a ground to decline to act on applications for temporary permits. The respondent herein is a party to Ext.P7 judgment. In view of the binding decisions of this Court evidenced by Exts.P6 and P7, I am W.P(C).No.7157 of 2011 -:3:- of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent that he will not entertain Ext.P5 application for the reason that the petitioner has not applied in time for renewal of Ext.P1 permit cannot be sustained. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to entertain Ext.P5 application for temporary permit and grant the same, if there is no other legal impediment for such grant, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.7157 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th March, 2011