IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 443 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.P.JOY, MEKKATT HOUSE,P.O.ELANAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 443 OF 2009 (C) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the inaction on the part of the respondent in passing orders on Exts.P9 and P10. 2. Petitioner was granted a permit by Ext.P2. There were litigations between the petitioner and a rival applicant, which may not be relevant for the purpose of this judgment. It is stated that the timing was not settled pursuant to Ext.P2 though petitioner offered timing as per Ext.P7. There was delay on the part of the respondent in settling the timing and that lead the petitioner to file a writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.12371/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing the respondent therein to convene the timing conference in the manner as directed. That has now been complied with. 3. In the meanwhile, the vehicle became old and the petitioner wanted to offer a new vehicle which he did by Ext.P9. There was no response to the said communication and therefore Ext.P10 application was also made. Even then, there has not been any response. Petitioner submits that it was because he offered a new vehicle that the respondent is not issuing the permit granted by Ext.P2. It is therefore, the writ WPC 443/09 :2 : petition is filed. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to change the vehicle before the issue of the permit, it being the settled legal position. In view of this, the fact that the petitioner had offered a different vehicle is no reason for the respondent to decline to issue the permit granted in his favour as per Ext.P2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pass orders on Exts.P9 and P10 in the light of the observations made herein above. Orders shall be passed on Exts.P9 and P10, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp