IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30068 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- O.D. BIJU, ORAVANTHURUTHY HOUSE, THURUTHIPURAM P.O, PUTHENVELIKKARA, NORTH PARUR BY ADV. SRI. P. DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR – 680 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR- 680 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WP(C). No. 30068 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : 1. EXT.P1 - COPY OF 'FORM G' DATED 30/4/2010 2. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 2/2/2011 WITH COVERING LETTER 3. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8/8/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE PN P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, who was operating a stage carriage service till 30.4.2010 on the strength of a regular permit on the route Kodungallur – Chalakudy. The said permit is valid till 23.12.2011. The petitioner was running the service with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/V 4061, a 1996 model vehicle which had a seating capacity of 35 passengers. In view of the poor mechanical condition of the vehicle the petitioner garaged it from 1.5.2010, though it could have been put on road till 6.1.2011. Ext.P1 intimation in Form G was given on 30.4.2010. It is stated that the petitioner is periodically giving intimations in Form G, to the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur and that for the period ending with 31.10.2011 also the petitioner has given such an intimation. The petitioner has also stated that even now the vehicle is garaged at the place mentioned in Ext.P1. 2. After the vehicle was garaged, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 -:2:- representation accompanied by an application in the prescribed form, both dated 2.2.2011 for replacement of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/V 4061 with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AJ 1923, a 2002 model vehicle. He also remitted the fee of Rs.5,400/- on the same day. The chalan evidencing payment was also attached with the application. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, that met on 8.8.2011 considered the said application and took the following decision. “Heard. The permit is found as valid till 23.12.2011 and the validity of the registration of the vehicle covered by the permit expired on 06.01.2011. The applicant has filed replacement application only on 23.03.2011. Neither delay condonation application nor reason for the delay in replacing the old vehicle is filed by the applicant. Hence the Secretary is directed to verify the service of the vehicle after expiry of registration validity and to ascertain whether any request for delay condonation is filed. For the above reasons the application is adjourned.” Ext.P3 order is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same. W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 -:3:- 2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to sanction Exhibit P2 application for replacement untrammeled by the findings and observations contained in Exhibit P3.” 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the stage carriage permit issued to him is valid till 23.12.2011, that an application for replacement can be filed at any point of time during the validity of the permit, that no time limit is stipulated for submitting an application for replacement during the currency of the permit and therefore the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority to adjourn the application for ascertaining whether any application to condone the delay in seeking replacement has been filed, is without the sanction or authority of law. The petitioner also contends that as intimations in Form G have been given even with effect from 1.5.2010 and even in respect of the current quarter ending with 31.12.2011, the intimation in Form G has been given, the Regional Transport Authority erred in holding that the application is belated. 4. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 -:4:- appearing for the respondents. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the stage carriage permit issued to the petitioner is valid till 23.12.2011. The fact that the vehicle has been garaged and intimations in Form G have been given is also not disputed. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that the application for replacement of the vehicle was filed only on 23.3.2011 without an application to condone the delay. No provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which stipulates that an application for replacement should be filed within a particular period from the date of cessation of the service was brought to my notice. No such provision has also been referred to in Ext.P3. An application for replacement can be made at any point of time during the validity of the permit. In Aysha v. R.T.A., Kasaragod, 2006 (3) KLT 1013, while considering the question whether non-availability of a vehicle is a ground for cancellation of a stage carriage permit permit, a learned single Judge of this Court held that though a permit holder cannot operate a stage carriage, which is 15 years old, it does not mean that the operator could not have brought a ready vehicle later on, W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 -:5:- during the currency of the permit. Such being the situation, as the permit in the instant case is current, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. The petitioner had also intimated the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur, who is also the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, that the vehicle has been garaged and that it is not fit to be put on road. The Regional Transport Authority does not dispute the fact that the validity of the registration of the vehicle that was earlier used to operate the service expired on 6.1.2011. Such being the situation I am of the opinion that the Regional Transport Authority should consider the petitioner's application for replacement on the merits and take an appropriate decision thereon uninfluenced by Ext.P3. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P3 and direct the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's application for replacement of the vehicle expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. If the Regional Transport Authority has delegated power to grant replacement of W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 -:6:- the vehicle to the second respondent, it will be open to the second respondent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders thereon and in that event orders shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.30068 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th November, 2011