IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15399 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHEEN, BROTHER NIVAS, KANNANALLOOR P.O KOLLAM. 2. SMT.VALSALA, W/O.LATE SURAPALAN, BISMI NIVAS, MEENAD, NEDUNGOLAM PO KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15399 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The second petitioner is the permit holder of a regular stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-2B/2070, conducting services on the route Paravoor-Enath. The vehicle has completed 15 years of age and therefore it is not permissible to be operated. The first petitioner has been operating in the place of the earlier service with his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-1/W 2534 on the strength of a temporary permit issued to him. The first petitioner had moved an application for re-issue of the temporary permit which was rejected by Ext.P2. The second petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 for the replacement of her old vehicle with a later model vehicle, on which no orders have been passed yet. The first petitioner's application for temporary permit has been rejected for the only reason that the regular permit cannot be considered to be valid since the old vehicle was not replaced by a later model one. 2. The counsel for the petitioner attacks the above reasoning of the second respondent by placing reliance on wpc No.15399/2010 2 the decision of this Court reported in Smt.Aysha v. Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod & Ors. (AIR 2006 Kerala 360). In the said decision, a Single Bench of this Court has held as follows: “The availability of a vehicle is not relevant for the grant but for the issuance of the permit. Section 86 does not provide the non-availability of vehicle as a ground for cancellation of permit. All that law requires is that the permit should be availed within the outer limit prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide non-replacement of a vehicle or the non-availability of a vehicle that is being plied under a permit as a ground for cancellation of permit. The embargo on the permit holder is that after 31.3.2004, a stage carriage, which would have become 15 years' old by then, could not be plied. This does not, by itself, mean that the operator could not have brought a ready vehicle later on, during the currency of the permit. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle has attained the age of more than 15 years is no ground to cancel the permit and an operator, which has permit in his favour, is entitled to bring in another proper vehicle during the currency of the permit”. 3. In view of the above dictum, the reasoning in Ext.P2 is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon wpc No.15399/2010 3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar submits that the application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the second petitioner would be considered at the meeting of the first respondent scheduled to be held on 15.6.2010. However, he points out that there are some defects in Ext.P3 application. In rectification of this, the petitioner may submit another application, in which event, the said application would also be considered at the meeting scheduled to be held on 15.6.2010. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the joint application submitted by the petitioners evidenced herein by Ext.P1 shall be considered at the meeting of the first respondent on 15.6.2010. The above submissions are recorded. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/