IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 69 of 2009(G) ------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------------- N.KAMALOLBHAVAN, MANI MANDIRAM, AMC-13/423, KOTTIYODU LANE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT : --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT. SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 69 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The respondent granted regular permit to the petitioner. Against that order an appeal was filed by a 3rd party. That appeal was allowed and matter was remanded. On reconsideration, the petitioner's application for permit was rejected and permit was granted in favour of the 3rd party referred to above. Against that proceedings of the RTA, petitioner filed an appeal and obtained a stay. However, for the reason that permit was already granted to the 3rd party, stay was vacated. That proceedings have challenged before this court in O.P. No.15906/1997 and by Exhibit P2 judgment, this court disposed of the writ petition directing that until the matter is finally decided, the petitioner also may be allowed to operate temporarily with a different set of timings. Accordingly, the service continued on the strength of temporary permit. 2. While so, by Exhibit P3 judgment State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeal against the proceedings of RTA rejecting the petitioner's application and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. In that judgment also, Status Quo was ordered to be W.P.(C) No. 69 / 2009 2 maintained. Thus, during all these periods, the petitioner was continuing to operate on the strength of temporary permits. 3. While so, the vehicle became old by more than 15 years and the petitioner by Exhibit P6 acquired a new vehicle. On the expiry of the period of the temporary permit granted, petitioner applied for fresh temporary permit, offering a new vehicle. According to the petitioner, orders have not been passed on Exhibit P8. 4. The petitioner submits that reason for not passing order is that the vehicle offered by him is different from what was offered earlier. 5. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to offer a new vehicle. Since it is the settled position that till permit is issued, it is open to the permit holder to change the vehicle; if the petitioner offered new vehicle, that there is no reason to deny temporary permit to him. Since orders have not been passed on Exhibit P8, I direct the first respondent to pass orders thereon, in the light of the observations made herein as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm