IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22387 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOHNSON, JOHNSONS, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.22387 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator and the registered owner of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-2/P 1144 conducting services on the route Eravipuram - Bishop House. The permit was valid till 28.6.2010. The petitioner submitted an application for the renewal of his permit on 24.6.2010. Along with his application for renewal, the petitioner also submitted an application for the issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(`the Act' for short). According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act for the reason that his application for renewal of regular permit is pending. 2. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, who opposes the contentions of the petitioner, a reading of Ext.P3 order would show that as on date thereof, the petitioner's application for renewal of regular permit was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Since an application for renewal of his regular Wpc 22387/2010 2 permit that is not accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay cannot be considered to be a pending application for renewal, his application for temporary permit was rejected. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the said order of rejection, evidenced herein by Ext.P3. 3. However, Adv.O.D.Sivadas, who appears for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 application for condonation of delay has been submitted on 12.7.2010 and therefore, his application for regular permit is accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. The learned Senior Government Pleader meets the above contention by pointing out that, as on the date of Ext.P3, viz 9.7.2010, there was no delay condonation petition on file. Therefore, the passing of Ext.P3 order was absolutely justified. 4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner's application for the renewal of his regular permit is now accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay, he has already submitted Ext.P8, a fresh application for the issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act. He therefore prays for a Wpc 22387/2010 3 consideration of his application, Ext.P8, notwithstanding the rejection of his earlier application as per Ext.P3. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that he is not able to say whether the application for renewal of permit that was not accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay till Ext.P7 application was filed, is actually pending or not. However since Ext.P8 is pending, the same can be directed to be considered in accordance with law. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act, evidenced herein by Ext.P8, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in the light of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this court and to issue the permit, provided the petitioner's application for renewal of regular permit is pending, 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. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk