IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4608 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MUHAMMED SIRAJ, S/O.SABKKA ABDUL HAJI, ZAKKEENATH MANZIL, P.O.AZHEEKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- THE SECRETARY, (RTO) REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN- 676505. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4608 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He had applied for a regular stage carriage permit in the vacancy of another vehicle, on the route Parappanangadi-Manjeri (Via) Chemmad, Vengara and Malappuram. The RTA had considered the application in its meeting held on 22.12.2010 and the permit was granted, as evidenced from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, he had produced current records of a vehicle bearing No.KL-4K-3319 and sought for issuance of the permit which was already granted under Ext.P1. In this regard Ext.P2 request was submitted before the respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is liable for payment of motor vehicle tax with respect to the above said vehicle only when the endorsement of tax is made at the time of issuance of permit. But the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent had insisted for payment of tax with 2 W.P.(C).No.4608 of 2011 respect to the vehicle at the rate applicable to stage carriage, with effect from 1.1.2011 onwards, as a pre- condition for accepting the current records and for issuing the permit. It is further stated that the petitioner is keeping the vehicle ready for use, but due to the above dispute and the non acceptance of tax, he was prevented from operating the vehicle. 3. From the facts as stated above, it is noticed that the dispute is regarding liability for payment of tax at the rate applicable to stage carriages for the month of January 2011. However, at the first instance, it is for the respondent to take a decision on the aspect, in view of Ext.P2 request. It is always left open to the petitioner to challenge the matter, if the decision taken in this regard is against his interest. It will be highly premature for this Court to enter upon any adjudication on the issue. Therefore, I am of the view that a direction to the respondent to take a decision within a time frame will serve the interest of justice. 3 W.P.(C).No.4608 of 2011 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take decision regarding acceptance of tax with respect to the vehicle in question and regarding issuance of the permit granted, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/