IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32354 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- JOWINCE JOSE, S/O.M.T.JOSEPH, AGED 32, MUNDATTIL HOUSE, PAINKULAM, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.M.T.JOSEPH, MUNDATTIL HOUSE, PAINKULAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY/REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32354 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a registered owner of a stage carriage covered by a regular permit in the route Maniyanthram-Amayapra. As the existing vehicle was not capable of using, petitioner submitted 'G' Form and a later model vehicle was offered by him as a replacement. The RTA finally allowed the same as per Ext.P1. But the permit was not issued apparently for the reason that tax arrears for the earlier vehicle had not been cleared. 2. Ext.P2 shows that the revisional authority under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act allowed the revision filed by the petitioner exempting the tax that was outstanding. If that be so, the RTA should consider that the tax arrears for the old vehicle has been cleared and if it is so done, then I do not find any reason to reject the application for replacement. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders in this regard within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by taking note of Ext.P2 order. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb W.P.C.No. 32354 OF 2008 -:2:-