IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31752 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMEER BABU.K., KAITHERI HOUSE, THIRUKAD.P.O., ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD.678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 31752/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENDORSEMENTS. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE R C BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-53 1194. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 ALLOTTING NUMBER TO THE PETITIONER'S NEW VEHICLE KL-53 C 9001. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C]NO.27831/2011 DATED 31.10.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /True Copy/ vps PA to Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31752 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Walayar-Kozhikode on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. The petitioner is presently operating the service with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-53 1194 with a seating capacity of 38 passengers. This writ petition is filed contending that though the petitioner had tendered Ext.P3 application for replacement of the stage carriage with a later model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-53 C 9001 with a seating capacity of 48 passengers, the respondent declined to receive the application on the ground that there is material difference of more than 25% between the two vehicles. This writ petition is filed for an order directing the respondent to receive Ext.P3 application and to take an appropriate decision thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission hearing today, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing WPC No.31752/2011 2 for the respondent submitted on instructions that if Ext.P3 application is tendered along with the requisite fee and the relevant documents, the respondent will place the same before the Regional Transport Authority for consideration. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner expressed the apprehension that the Regional Transport Authority is likely to reject the application on the ground that there is material difference of more than 25% in the seating capacity of the incoming vehicle. In my opinion, the said apprehension is unfounded. All that sub rule (2) of rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates is that upon receipt of the application, the Transport Authority may in his discretion, reject the application - (a) If it has previous to the date of receipt of the application given reasonable notice of its intention to reduce the number of Transport Vehicles of that class generally or in respect of the route or area to which the permit applies; or (b) If the new vehicle proposed differs in material respects from the old; or (c) if the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced; or (d) If the holder of the permit has contravened the provisions thereof or has been deprived of possession of the old vehicle under the provisions of any WPC No.31752/2011 3 agreement of hire purchase, hypothecation or lease. It is not stipulated in the rules that if the new vehicle proposed differs in material respects from the old, the Regional Transport Authority shall reject the application. It is for the Regional Transport Authority to decide whether even though the new vehicle differs in material respects from the old, replacement should be permitted. In the instant case, the seating capacity of the vehicle offered by the petitioner is 48 as against 38 of the outgoing vehicle. If the number of seats is increased, the State will get more revenue by way of tax. I am therefore of the opinion that the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that his application will be rejected does not merit acceptance. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner tendering an application for replacement of the existing stage carriage with another stage carriage accompanied by the receipt evidencing payment of fee and other documents which are required to be produced, the respondent shall place it before the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad for consideration. The Regional Transport Authority WPC No.31752/2011 4 shall consider the application and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of the application. It will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to follow the procedure prescribed in rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules for consideration of the application, if it is of the opinion that the petitioner need not be heard before orders are passed on his application. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad shall in the event of the replacement being granted, make necessary endorsements on the permit forthwith. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.31752/2011 5