IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19956 of 2010() ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.RAJENDRAN, AGED 44, S/O.K.RAMASWAMI, 3/109, GOUNDER NIVAS, AGALI, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 19956 OF 2010 T ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner had purchased a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No:KL-9/H.316 along with its permit to conduct services on the route Anaketty-Paloor. After purchasing the vehicle from one Shri Aboobacker a joint application for transfer of the permit was submitted before the first respondent. Though the application was considered on 3/8/2007, the same was adjourned finding that there were tax arrears in respect of some of the vehicles owned by Shri. Aboobacker and that a vigilance enquiry was pending against him. It is the case of the petitioner that there are no tax arrears in respect of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner along with Shri. Aboobacker had filed W.P(C) 11720/2008 challenging the action of the first respondent and the same was disposed of directing the said authority to pass final orders within eight weeks. However, the matter was again adjourned stating that the final report of the vigilance enquiry was still due. 2. The petitioner has in the above circumstances got the vehicle valued through an authorised valuer and has submitted his WPC 19956/2010 2 report. The petitioner has also submitted an affidavit undertaking to pay any dues that may be found due in respect of his vehicle to the extent of its value. It is also pointed out that the first respondent had accepted such an affidavit and had allowed transfer of another vehicle belonging to the very same Aboobacker, as per Ext.P6. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is also entitled to a similar order. 3. Ext.P6 shows that the first respondent has allowed transfer of permit with respect to another vehicle belonging to Shri. Aboobacker. Ext.P5 is the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Since as per Exts.P2 and P3 the petitioner's application for transfer has been adjourned, it is clear that the same is kept pending for the reason that report of vigilance enquiry has not yet been received. Since as per Ext.P6, an application submitted by a similarly placed person has been allowed, there is no reason why the petitioner's application should also not be considered by the authority. 4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the joint application for transfer submitted by the petitioner and Shri.Aboobacker in respect of vehicle bearing registration No: KL-9/H.316, in the light of Ext.P4 valuation certificate, Ext.P5 affidavit and Ext.P6 decision. The WPC 19956/2010 3 application shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 19956/2010 4