IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17553 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MONEY, PANACHICKAL VEEDU, MUNDAPUZHA, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17553/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner operates a stage carriage on the route Kariamplavu - Kochukulam. The permit is being operated currently with the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03-H-577. Petitioner has sought for replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle. He has taken on lease the new vehicle and has filed an application for replacement of the vehicle, as evidenced by Ext.P1. He submits that the respondent is not taking any action on the replacement application on the ground that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of a Division Bench in Raveendran v. R.T.A, Kannur (1995 (1) KLJ, 96), followed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, submits that the permit holder need not always be the owner of the vehicle offered in replacement. This contention is supported by the view taken in Ext.P7 judgment. W.P.(C).17553/2009 2 2. In the result, respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P5 application within one month from today, after notice to the petitioner as also the registered owner of the vehicle, which is offered in replacement, as mentioned in Ext.P7. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs