IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20661 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASHOKAN T.S., S/O.T.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 42 YEARS, 85, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COIMBATORE SOUTH, COIMBATORE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20661/2008-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DTD. 20/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, PALAKKAD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT DTD. 17/05/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY RTA, PALAKKAD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN W.P.(MISC.) NO. 32628/2003 IN W.P.NO. 26702/2003 DTD. 24/09/2003. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C). NO. 16484/2008 DTD. 12/06/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 26/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 28/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B2/3961/TC/96 DTD. 15/07/2000 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN W.P.(C). NO. 10166/08 DTD. 28/04/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: LIST/DETAILS OF VEHICLES WITH TAX ARREAR PARTICULARS. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20661 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P5. Ext. P5 was a communication issued to the petitioner following Ext. P4 judgment of this Court. The effect of Ext. P5 is that his application for renewal of a contract carriage permit has been declined, on the ground that the RTO, Coimbatore had intimated that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of motor vehicle tax. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that there has not been any quantification or any demand of any tax. It is also contended that at any rate renewal of permit of a contract carriage cannot be declined on the ground that the applicant is a defaulter in another State. It is also his contention that this aspect stands clarified by Ext. P7 circular. It is stated that Ext. P5 was passed without putting the petitioner on notice and therefore he could not make use of the circular referred to above. Therefore, in effect what the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 20661OF 2008 -2- now seeks is that the 1st respondent be directed to hear him and decide on the renewal applied for by him. 2. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader, I feel, natural justice demands that the petitioner should have been heard in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner and decide on his claim for renewal of the permit, inspite of the default of payment of tax as mentioned in Ext. P5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-