IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25490 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.K.BABU, THOZUTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRLAYAM, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRNASPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPROT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25490 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Exts.P5 and P6. 2. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Secretary of the RTA following the directions of the STAT in MVAA 753/07. By this order, the Secretary held that the petitioner failed to produce the current records of the vehicle within the permissible time limit of 20/7/2007. Accordingly, on the ground that he violated Rule 159(2) of the KMV Rules, his request to issue permit granted to his newly produced vehicle was declined. It was against this order MVAA 288/08 was filed by the petitioner and that was rejected by Ext.P6 judgment of the STAT. 3. As is seen from Ext.P6, petitioner had a case that current records in respect of the newly acquired vehicle was produced before the Secretary within time and it was taking into account that contention, his earlier appeal against the order of revocation of the grant, filed as MVAA 753/07 was disposed of by the STAT as per its order dated 2/2/2008 directing reconsideration of the matter. It was in pursuance to that order that Ext.P5 proceedings were issued by the Secretary. In Ext.P6, the STAT WPC 25490/08 :2 : has concurred with the view taken by the Secretary in Ext.P5 that the petitioner had produced the current records beyond the maximum time permissible under Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. 4. Going by the dates, I also fully agree with the view taken by the STAT in Ext.P6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that Rule 159 (2) is inapplicable and relies on Ext.P2 judgments. In my view, this contention of the petitioner cannot be appreciated for the reason that all through he did not raise this plea and on the other hand, he himself had applied for enlargement of time invoking Rule 159(2) and enjoyed its benefit. After having availed of the benefit of Rule and enjoyed the same, in my view, the plea of inapplicability of the rule cannot be permitted to be urged by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp