IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36983 of 2007(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.B.BHOOPESH,VELLANCHERY HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36983/2007-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION DTD.07/02/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 22/10/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 22/11/2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 752/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/12/2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 752/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36983 OF 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The prayer sought for in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, as confirmed by Ext.P4. 2. Petitioner was granted regular permit in respect of a vehicle No. KL-8/Y 5367 having a seating capacity of 38 seats. Subsequently the petitioner offered a vehicle with a seating capacity of 28 and on the finding that the petitioner violated the Rule 174(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, the permit granted on 19.10.2005 was revoked by the 1st respondent by Ext.P2 proceedings. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that there is violation of Rule 174(2) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. Hence writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the aforesaid orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that W.P.(C) No.36983/2007 2 the finding of the authorities that there is violation of Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules is incorrect. It is stated that the Rule can apply only in respect of a holder of a regular permit who has been issued a permit that has been granted. According to him, in this case permit was not granted and therefore he can not be considered as holder of a permit to attract provisions of Rule 174. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand sought to justify the impugned orders. 2. A reading of Rule 174 shows that if the holder of a permit desires at any time to replace a vehicle covered by the permit with another vehicle, the Rule will be applicable. In this case, admittedly though permit was granted, the petitioner was not issued. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as holder of a permit seeking replacement of the vehicle covered by the permit. If that be the case, the restrictions that there cannot be replacement with a vehicle which is materially different as provided in the note to the said Rule, cannot be applicable to the petitioner. In view of this, the Tribunal and R.T.A erred in their approach. Accordingly, Exts.P2 and P4 will W.P.(C) No.36983/2007 3 stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the R.T.A for fresh consideration. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps