IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14271 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.A.RAJAN, MAYILVAHANAN, SHORANUR - 679 121, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.14271 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an operator who has been granted a regular permit on the route Guruvayur-Palakkad (via) Pattambi, Ottapalam with respect to Stage Carriage KL 9/D 5220. It expired on 9.9.2007. The petitioner then applied for a renewal of the permit. The complaint of the petitioner is that the renewal has not been considered till date. The petitioner had also applied for replacement of the vehicle with a later model vehicle KL-51/6969. However, no orders have been passed on the replacement application also. Since the consideration of the renewal application for regular permit was taking time, the petitioner had also applied for a temporary permit. Such application has also been remaining under consideration. Ext.P3 is the application for renewal, Ext.P5 is the application for temporary permit and Ext.P6 is the application for replacement of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, all the three applications are pending before the respondents. 2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that though Wpc 14271/2009 2 the petitioner had applied for renewal of the regular permit, it was noticed that the tax in respect of the vehicle offered by the petitioner was in arrears. Therefore, the petitioner was required to pay the tax before the application for renewal could be considered. Thereupon, the petitioner offered a new vehicle and sought replacement of the vehicle offered earlier. Since the tax was remaining in arrears, the authority did not consider the applications of the petitioner and insisted on payment of the tax. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrears of tax would be remitted within a period of ten days from today. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to remit the tax that is in arrears in respect of the vehicle, KL 9 D 5220 within a period of ten days from today. There shall be a further direction to the first respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner evidenced herein by Exts.P3 and P6 and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month, at the next meeting to be convened. The second respondent shall issue a Wpc 14271/2009 3 temporary permit to the petitioner as soon as the tax is paid in accordance with the above direction, under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk