IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33702 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MAYA MARTIN, 16/191A (16/39), BALIYAPADATH HOUSE, CHEERAKAD TEMPLE ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DAVIS B.O., BAVANIKULANGARA, VATTUPARAMBU P.O., KUNNMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-682 030. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33702 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a stage carriage permit holder. She is operating the service with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 4/K 1084 on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. It is valid up to 15.10.2012. Since the first petitioner is not in a position to carry on with the stage carriage service and the second petitioner is willing to conduct the same they jointly submitted Ext.P2 application for transfer of permit in the name of the second petitioner. In the meanwhile, Exts.P4 to P10 charge memos were issued to the first petitioner. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not taking up Ext.P2 application for consideration and at the same time, insisted the petitioners for compounding the offences alleged against the first petitioner in the check reports. The contention of the petitioners is that when an application for transfer of permit is submitted in accordance with the provisions, the respondents are bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and that the respondents cannot refuse to entertain the said application and pass orders thereon and compel the petitioners to WP(C).No.33702/2010 2 compound the offences alleged against the permit holder/registered owner in the check reports as a condition for consideration of such an application. According to the petitioners, there is no provision enabling the respondents to resort to such an action. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24496 of 2005. In the said case, the respondent therein refused to receive the motor vehicle tax and also to issue the fitness certificate and insisted the concerned petitioners to compound the offences as a condition for receiving the motor vehicles tax and issuance of fitness certificate. This Court held that the respondents could not insist for compounding an offence alleged against the petitioners in the check reports as a condition for considering an application submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. That apart, it was held thereunder that in case the concerned stage carriage operator declined to pay the compounding fee that would only render him liable to be prosecuted. In short, in case of violation of the conditions of permit, it will be open to the competent authority to prosecute the permit holder, in accordance with law but, that cannot be a reason for insisting for compounding of offences alleged against the concerned permit holder in a check report as a condition for consideration of an application for transfer WP(C).No.33702/2010 3 of permit submitted in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules. In view of the position thus obtained and also in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24496 of 2005 the respondents cannot disuse their power and in fact, they are bound to exercise the powers vested with them in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules on receipt of an application for transfer of permit. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application for transfer of permit in accordance with the provisions expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS