IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15184 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KANARAN, PONNADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOKAVOOR PO, ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-3. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15184 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, who has been issued with a regular permit to operate on the route Kaipurathpalam – Payambra with vehicle No. KL-10-H-4575, valid upto 17.10.2009. According to the petitioner, his vehicle had become old and unfit for operations. Therefore, he purchased new vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11-Y-9973 and applied for replacement of the old vehicle with a new vehicle. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the parties to pass orders on the application for replacement within four weeks. The petitioner complains that no orders have been passed on his application, till date. 2. While so, the old vehicle KL-10-H-4575 is missing from the place of garage from 31.3.2010. The petitioner complained to the police, a criminal case was registered and the said case is still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri. As per Ext.P7, on 31.3.2010 the petitioner has W.P.(C) No.15184/2010 2 been granted renewal of his permit. The present complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent is not endorsing the renewal to the new vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11-Y-9973. Now the respondent is insisting on production of the old vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not necessary for the petitioner to retain the old vehicle which had become unfit for use. The petitioner had a right to sell the said vehicle or to dispose off, in any manner, as deem fit by him. There is no justification for the authorities to insist on the production of the said vehicle. 4. The learned senior Government Pleader, Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, opposes the contentions of the petitioner by pointing out that the authorities had a duty to ascertain whether tax in respect of the vehicle was in arrears or not, before issuing the permit. It is for the said purpose that current records of the old vehicle was directed to be produced. Therefore, it is submitted that unless the records of the old W.P.(C) No.15184/2010 3 vehicle was produced the renewed permit could not be granted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court dated 29.3.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 9012/2007. In the said judgment also, the facts were similar. After considering the issues that arose for consideration, this Court has concluded the matter in the following words: “The petitioner is now operating on the strength of temporary permits on the route, using the new vehicle. I feel that he need not retain the old vehicle for the purpose of getting renewal of the permit and thereafter replace it with the new vehicle. At present there is no permit and therefore, the petitioner can dispose of his old vehicle, as he pleases. The same will not be a ground for rejecting his application for renewal. If, finally, the petitioner succeeds in getting renewal of the permit, at the relevant time he should be permitted to produce a suitable vehicle, for operating on the route on the strength of that permit.” 6. In the present case, the petitioner's permit has already been renewed, as is clear from Ext.P7, for a further W.P.(C) No.15184/2010 4 period of five years. Therefore, the records of the old vehicle are necessary only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the tax in respect of the old vehicle is in arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would remit whatever tax is found to be due and in arrears in respect of the old vehicle. 7. In view of the above undertaking, it is found that it is not necessary for the petitioner to produce the old vehicle before the respondent. The respondent is free to quantify the amount of tax, if any, in arrears in respect of the old vehicle of the petitioner. On the petitioner making payment of the said arrears of tax, the renewed permit of the vehicle shall be endorsed. The application of the petitioner for replacement of his vehicle with the new vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-11-Y-9973 shall be considered and disposed of within a period of two weeks thereafter. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps