IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27545 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANKARDAS, CHEERAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27545 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-8 R 3820, which is a 2000 model vehicle. The vehicle was covered by a permit to conduct service on the route Potta Colony- Pazhayannur-Elanad-Kumpalakode valid till 20.4.2011. The petitioner procured a 2007 model vehicle and filed an application for replacement of the vehicle, on 6.5.2009. But the 2nd respondent takes the stand that he will not allow the replacement application unless the petitioner produces fitness certificate of the old vehicle, which has expired on 29.5.2009. The petitioner would contend that there is no logic in insisting on fitness certificate of the old vehicle when the petitioner is seeking replacement of that vehicle with a later model vehicle. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction, directing the respondent, Secretary, RTA, Thrissur to consider Ext.P1 application for replacement in respect of stage carriage KL- 38 R 3820 with stage carriage KL-48 9339, so as to operate on the route Potta Colony-Pazhayannur-Elanad-Kumpalakode on the basis of the regular permit valid till 20.4.2011, without insisting for renewal of the Fitness Certificates of the old vehicle KL-8 R 3820, within a time frame as this Hon Court may deem fit and proper. ii. to grant such other reliefs as this Hon Court deem fit and proper. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 2 3. I find considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner. I am at a loss to understand the logic of insistence on the fitness certificate of the old vehicle, when the petitioner wants to replace that vehicle with a later model vehicle. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 application of the petitioner in accordance with the findings herein above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge