IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 735 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABOOBACKER,VEETTILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTATHARA,AGALI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.735 of 2010 - N ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 Judgment The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL/9G-4626 on the route Anakkatty-Guruvayur. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11924 of 2009, the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad granted renewal of the said permit and also permitted replacement of the existing stage carriage with another vehicle subject to various conditions. Ext.P1 is a copy of the proceedings issued in that regard by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. In Ext.P1, it was inter alila stipulated that the petitioner should produce a no objection certificate from the financier and a clearance certificate in respect of Government dues as regards the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL/9G-4626 or instead, a solvency certificate issued by a Nationalised bank. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid stipulations by filing W.P.(C) No. 735/2010 2 M.V.A.A.No.421 of 2009 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 28.11.2009 after notice to and hearing the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam held that the stipulations which were impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the conditions imposed in Ext.P1 that were under challenge were set aside. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though nearly two months have passed after Ext.P3 judgment was delivered, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad has not issued a renewed permit in terms of Ext.P1 order as modified by Ext.P3 judgment. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that as Ext.P1 has been modified by Ext.P3 judgment, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad will have to issue a renewed permit. He submits that necessary steps in that regard will be taken expeditiously. W.P.(C) No. 735/2010 3 In the light of the said submission, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to issue a renewed permit in terms of Ext.P1 order as modified by Ext.P3 judgment and endorse replacement of the vehicle on the renewed permit within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa