IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 558 of 2010(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.905/2010 DATED 18/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: -------------------------------- V.K.SREEKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESOM P.O., ALUVA-3. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- R.P.No.558 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.905 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd July, 2010 ORDER This is an application seeking a review of the judgment delivered on 18.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No.905 of 2010 by enlarging the time limit fixed in the said judgment for replacing the vehicle mentioned in Exts.P1 and P4 permits with a vehicle which is less than five years old. 2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator who was operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07-AH-1712 on the route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode-Thalassery as a limited stop fast passenger service. The permit was issued initially on 31.12.1994 and it was being renewed periodically. The last of the renewals was up to 30.12.2009. Even before the validity of the permit expired, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit and produced along with it the original of Ext.P3 fitness certificate which discloses that the vehicle was fit for use as a stage carriage bus till 27.3.2010. Pending consideration of the application for renewal of the permit, Ext.P4 temporary permit valid till 30.4.2010 was issued. Thereafter Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued informing the R.P.No.558/2010 2 petitioner that as his vehicle is more than five years old he should take urgent steps to replace the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle which is less than five years old on the ground that a limited stop fast passenger service can be operated only by a stage carriage bus which is less than five years old. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply wherein he contended that as the fitness certificate of the existing vehicle is valid till 27.3.2010, he need replace the vehicle only before that date. He also contended that as a temporary permit has been issued to enable him to operate the vehicle as a limited stop fast passenger service up to 30.4.2010, the show cause notice was without jurisdiction. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5 show cause notice. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that it was pending the application for renewal of the regular permit that a temporary permit had been issued up to 30.4.2010, I disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to renew Ext.P1 regular permit if the petitioner replaces the vehicle mentioned in Exts.P1 and P4 permits with a vehicle which is less than five years old on or before 27.3.2010. I also directed that if the petitioner does not comply with the said direction, it will be open to the respondent to forthwith issue necessary directions to stop the service. R.P.No.558/2010 3 3. It is stated that though the petitioner purchased a new vehicle in February, 2010 and the chasis was delivered on 9.3.2010, the bus could not be produced after building the body before 28.3.2010 and that the vehicle was registered only on 3.6.2010. It is also stated that since the new vehicle could not be produced before 28.3.2010, the service was stopped and the old vehicle was garaged. It is further stated that though the new vehicle was produced for registration on 17.4.2010, the registering authority raised an objection regarding the number of seats fixed in the vehicle (48 seats) and insisted that the petitioner should raise the number of seats to 53. It is also stated that though the said direction was challenged by filing W.P.(C)No.13356 of 2010, as no interim order was passed in the said case, the petitioner complied with the said direction and fitted the bus with 53 seats and that it was thereafter that the vehicle was registered on 3.6.2010. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the motor vehicle tax and other charges with effect from 9.3.2010 and the vehicle was also insured on 9.3.2010. The petitioner has also stated that after registration, the new vehicle bearing registration No.KL 41/D 124 was produced before the respondent for replacement, but, the respondent refused to grant replacement for the reason that the vehicle was produced beyond the R.P.No.558/2010 4 time limit fixed by this Court. 4. I heard Sri.K.G.Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. By the judgment delivered on 18.1.2010 this Court had directed the petitioner to replace the vehicle on or before 27.3.2010. Ordinarily, if the petitioner had not produced a vehicle which is less than five years old, before 27.3.2010, he would have had to stop operating the stage carriage for the reason that the fitness certificate of the existing vehicle was valid only till 27.3.2010 and it was more than five years old. He could have however got a renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit on the production of a new vehicle. It was having regard to the validity of the temporary permit and the expiry of the fitness certificate that this Court directed him to produce a later model vehicle on or before 27.3.2010. It is now revealed that thought he petitioner purchased a new vehicle on 9.3.2010, due to certain technical reasons it could be registered only on 3.6.2010 by which time the time limit fixed by this Court had expired. It is not in dispute that a new vehicle was produced after registration before the respondent, namely after 3.6.2010. The question whether the R.P.No.558/2010 5 vehicle should be fitted with 48 seats or 53 seats is not a subject matter of dispute in the instant review petition. That is an issue which requires to be resolved in W.P.(C)No.13356 of 2010. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has admittedly produced a new vehicle before the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the direction issued by this Court that Ext.P1 permit shall be renewed if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, if the petitioner replaces the existing vehicle on or before 27.3.2010, requires to be suitably modified. I accordingly allow this review petition and delete the words `on or before 27.3.2010' occurring in the last paragraph of the judgment delivered on 18.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No.905 of 2010. In all other respects, the judgment delivered on 18.1.2010 shall stand. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS