IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28266 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BIJU SCARIA, KURAKUNNEL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT. CHITRA.G. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, PIN 685602. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28266 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 22nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is holding a regular permit. On the strength of the same he was operating on the route Kumily - Ernakulam with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-06/E 1245. Subsequently, it was replaced by a later model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-06/E 2808. In terms of the provisions under section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of the permit. The same was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki and as per Ext.P2 the Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit. Thereupon, the petitioner has approached the respondent for getting the same endorsed in the permit. However, the respondent is refusing to endorse the same and insisting the petitioner for production of a No Objection Certificate from the financier. The contention of the petitioner is that going by the provisions under Rule 131 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short `the Rules) it is the duty of the respondent to give effect to the decision taken by the RTA. Evidently, in this case, as per Ext.P2 the RTA has renewed the permit for a period of five years under section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the duty of the respondent under Rule 131 of the Rules to give effect to Ext.P2. In WP(C).No.28266/2010 2 short, the respondent is duty bound to endorse the same to enable the petitioner to operate on the route on the strength of Ext.P2. The respondent cannot refuse to endorse a decision taken by the RTA or insist for production of a No Objection Certificate for that purpose. The specific contention of the petitioner is that there is no provision enabling the respondent to insist for production of No Objection Certificate once the RTA considered the question and renewed the permit in the light of Rule 131 of the Rules. There cannot be any justification for the inaction on the part of the respondent in endorsing renewal of permit in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and at the same time for the action in insisting for production of No Objection Certificate. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to implement the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki taken as per Ext.P2 and endorse the same on the permit relating to the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No. KL-06/E 2808 expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS