IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26421 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.VINITHA VIKRAMAN, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26421 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was granted a regular permit valid till 7.11.2006. The vehicle completed 15 years of age on 20.5.2002. However, replacement was applied for by the petitioner only on 8.4.2005. That was rejected by the RTA by a laconic order and on that ground appeal against that order of rejection was allowed setting aside the order and directing its reconsideration. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and was again rejected. It is against that order, appeal was again filed and that resulted in Ext. P9 judgment dismissing the appeal. 2. In my view, admittedly the replacement application was made long after the vehicle attained the age of 15 years. If that be so, going by the Division Bench judgment reported in Rashinlal v. R.T.A. Kozhikode {2004 (1) KLT 1091} the permit stands cancelled automatically. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the RTA and the STAT is unassailable and the writ petition is only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-