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. 20781 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VENUGOPAL, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KIZUPILLIKARA, THANNIAM,THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. 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: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:20781 OF 2010 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-9 D 4590. The said vehicle was having a valid regular permit to conduct services on the route Triprayar-Thrissur- Guruvayur. The petitioner's vehicle attained 15 years of age in September 2008. Therefore, petitioner purchased a later model vehicle with registration No: KL-7 M 7398 and applied for replacement of his vehicle. He also remitted the requisite fee. According to the petitioner during the pendency of the said application, he purchased a later model vehicle KL-8 U 7902 and applied for replacing his vehicle with the said later model vehicle. The petitioner also requested the authority to adjust the fee that was earlier paid towards the fee payable for the present replacement. However, without considering any of the above aspects, the first respondent cancelled the petitioner's basic permit. According to the petitioner, since he had paid the requisite fees along with the earlier application, the same ought to have been adjusted towards the fee payable by him in respect of his later application. WPC 20781/2010 2 2. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, there was no proper application submitted by the petitioner for the reason that he had not paid the requisite fee. Therefore his application was rejected. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of his basic permit has already been challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal evidenced herein by Ext.P6, which is pending. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to be issued a temporary permit under Section 83(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. In view of the fact that the rejection of the petitioner's basic permit is pending consideration of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal, I do not want to say anything about the vires of the said order. Regarding the claim of the petitioner to be considered for the issue of a temporary permit it is up to the petitioner to submit an application for the said purpose to the authority. If the petitioner submits an application for issue of a temporary permit, the second respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. With the above direction this writ petition is disposed of. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 20781/2010 3 WPC 20781/2010 4