IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21137 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ABDUL MAJEED, KOLAPARATHI PARAMBA NALLALAM PO, CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ,KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 21137 OF 2010 N ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage bearing registration No: KL 11/X 4082. He submitted an application for the issue of a temporary permit for conducting services on the route Peringavu-Medical College Hospital in the vacancy of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL 11/D 826. The original permit in respect of the said vehicle was valid till 4/3/2009. Though the original permit holder has applied for renewal of the same, the same has not been granted since the vehicle is not fit for operation. Since the original vehicle is not conducting services on the route, according to the petitioner, there is a temporary need in existence. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that his application for temporary permit is only to be allowed. However, in spite of the above, Ext.P2 application has been returned with an endorsement that the route bus was not covered by any valid permit. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the route bus was not covered by a valid permit there was certainly a temporary need in existence and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the issue of a temporary permit under WPC 21137/2010 2 Section 87(1)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application on the merits. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader also. 2. Since the route bus is not conducting services, the petitioner is right in contending that there is a temporary need in existence. Therefore, there is no reason why Ext.P2 application of the petitioner should not be considered under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to re submit Ext.P2 for the above purpose. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 21137/2010 3 K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 21137/2010 4