IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13321 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.SHAJI, POYIKAVILA VEEDU, KARIMPALLOOR, P.O.PUTHENKULAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL (RURAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL (RURAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).13321 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a regular stage carriage permit holder, who was operating on the route Kottiyam-Karette with the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-6/1639, applied for renewal of the permit as per Ext.P1 application dated 19.9.2005. 2. Going by the statement filed by the respondents, the application for renewal of the permit has not been considered and decided so far. The Regional Transport Authority had adjourned the consideration of the application. In the meanwhile, KL- 6/6139 was garaged and intimation of the non-user of the vehicle was also intimated. The temporary need was met with an application for temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle KL-6/6139 had completed 15 years in 2007. Taking note of the application for renewal of the permit, the W.P.(C).13321 of 2009 :: 2 :: replacement application was filed on 3.3.2009. Temporary permits were also being re-issued from time to time and Ext.P4 is the application pending in this regard. The replacement application has not been disposed of so far. So also the temporary permit is not being issued. Hence this writ petition for appropriate orders. 3. But, respondents have declined to take up for consideration Ext.P2 application for replacement of the vehicle on the ground that it was filed only after the expiry of the regular permit in respect of the permits which were cancelled in respect of the vehicles which had attained the age of 15 years and that three months' time was being granted for operation of the permit within which it was necessary for the operator to submit a vehicle for replacement. 4. The permit in this case had expired in 2005 and there was an application for renewal of the same. Had the authorities decided to renew the regular W.P.(C).13321 of 2009 :: 3 :: permit, then it would have been necessary for the operators to produce the new vehicle within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. That was not done. The submission of the application for replacement of the vehicle on 3.3.2009 could not otherwise be treated as defective. Apparently, the difficulty arose on account of the delay in considering the application for replacement. 5. In the result, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P1 application for renewal of the regular permit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent shall proceed to pass orders on Ext.P2 application within two months. If the replacement application is allowed, the petitioner will be permitted to produce a vehicle within the time frame otherwise available, after renewal of the regular permit, but before issuance of the same. In the meanwhile, the W.P.(C).13321 of 2009 :: 4 :: 1st respondent shall also pass orders on Ext.P4 application under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge