IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19970 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU KALAPURAYIL CHACKO AGED 32, S/O.KALAPURAYIL CHACKO KALAPURAYIL HOUSE, TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BASALIYOSE, AGED 38 S/O.KALAPURAYIL CHACKO , KALAPURAYIL HOUSE, MANDHAMANGALAM,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,TRICHUR. 3. P.V.JOY, PATHICKAL HOUSE, MAROTTICHAL P.O. THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR ADDL.RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K S MUHAMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.19970 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL-10/S.140 which was covered by a regular permit to operate on the route Valloor - Thrissur - Mannuthy. The permit expired on 24.8.2006. The petitioner had submitted an application for the renewal of the permit within time, after remitting the required fees. The petitioner complains that the said application has not been considered or orders passed thereon, till date. Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions for the passing of final orders on Ext.P2 application, without further delay. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 pointing out that this writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that it is highly belated. According to the counter affidavit, though an application for renewal of permit was submitted by the petitioner after remitting the requisite fees, the same was not pursued by the petitioner thereafter. Now, after the elapse of four years, the Wpc 19970/2010 2 petitioner has filed this writ petition. He had filed an earlier writ petition, WP(C)14631 of 2010, which was withdrawn by him. According to respondents 1 and 2, though the petitioner had been directed to produce the current records of the vehicle, he did not do so and it was for the said reason that the application was kept pending. In the meantime, the time for production of such current records stipulated by Rule 172(3) had expired. Therefore, it is contended that the only course open to the petitioner is to file a fresh application for the grant of a regular permit. 3. The additional third respondent who has got himself impleaded, is the operator who is conducting services in the place of the petitioner. According to the additional third respondent, the petitioner is not at all interested in pursuing his application for renewal but that he has filed this writ petition at the behest of some other operator, who wants to take advantage of the permit that had been granted to the petitioner's vehicle. It is also submitted that the petitioner had gone to some Gulf Country, abandoning his application for renewal. Therefore, it is submitted that this writ petition is liable to be Wpc 19970/2010 3 dismissed. 4. It is not disputed that no orders have been passed on Ext.P2 application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner, though the matter has been pending from the year, 2006 onwards. The above being the position, the request of the petitioner can certainly be directed to be considered without further delay. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner had abandoned his application for renewal, there is no reason why the authority had not passed final orders thereon, rejecting the application for the said reason. Though it is contended that the petitioner had not produced the current records of the vehicle in spite of a direction to produce them, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the production of current records would arise only after the application for renewal is allowed. Admittedly, no such orders are passed in this case. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P2, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as Wpc 19970/2010 4 expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the additional third respondent also and after considering his submissions. The second respondent shall consider the objections of the additional 3rd respondent regarding the maintainability of the application also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk