IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17876 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SULAJA, SULAJA BHAVAN, KARINGANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17876 OF 2010 H ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL 16/7227. She submitted an application for the issue of a temporary permit on the route Anchal- Kottiyam in the vacancy of stage carriage vehicle No: KL 2/W 4599. The original route bus is not operating and the timings of the said vehicle is also vacant. According to the petitioner there is both regular need and a temporary need in existence. Therefore, the respondent is bound to consider the application and to grant the permit under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, without considering the temporary need Ext.P1 order has been passed rejecting application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader also. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 order shows that the petitioner's application for temporary permit has been rejected for the only reason that the regular permit of the route bus has expired on 21/4/2010 and the route bus has no regular permit at present. WPC 17876/2010 2 The question that should have been considered by the authority was whether there was a temporary need in existence. If there was a temporary need, the petitioner was certainly entitled to be granted the temporary permit that was sought for. However, the respondent has not considered the above aspect, which was the only question that should have been considered. In view of the above Ext.P1 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner afresh and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17876/2010 3