IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34029 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AJI RAJAN, 3/171, THALACHIRAPUTHENPURA, ANICADU, AVOLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 661. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 661. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.34029 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a regular permit holder and he was operating stage carriage service on the route Anchelpetty - Vannapuram on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. It was valid only up to 24.10.2010. Prior to the expiry of its validity the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal. Along with the same the petitioner has also submitted Ext.P3 application for replacement of the vehicle. Pending consideration of Exts.P2 and P3 the petitioner has submitted yet another application viz., Ext.P5 under section 87(1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting temporary permit. According to the petitioner, such a provision is actually meant for safeguarding the public interest, that is to see that during the pendency of application for renewal of permit the operation of service on a particular route shall not be affected. The contention of the petitioner is that despite receipt of Ext.P5 application for temporary permit, the second respondent is not taking any action thereon. The petitioner has also a grievance that no orders have been passed on Exts.P2 and P3. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P2 application for renewal of permit was submitted prior WP(C).No.34029/2010 2 to the expiry of the period of Ext.P1 permit. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P3 application for replacement of the aforesaid vehicle. Thus, applications which are submitted before the competent authority are strictly in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules. Ext.P5 is an application submitted in terms of section 87(1)(d) of the Act. In short, the respondents are bound to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2, P3 and P5. However, considering the fact that any further delay in the matter of consideration of Ext.P5 would affect the travelling public on the route an expeditious decision on the same is inevitable. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The second respondent shall consider Ext.P5 application for temporary permit expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall consider Exts.P2 and P3 and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS