IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 8753 of 2008(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.K.RAVINDRAN, S/O KARAPPAN AGED 60 YEARS, MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, [R.C.OWNER OF SC VEHICLE KL-08/C - 212] BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR, REP.ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER [RTO], THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON 19/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8753 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in this writ petition are to direct the respondents not to cancel Ext.P2 permit of the stage carriage KL-08-C -212 till the disposal of Ext.P3 replacement application or till 21/5/2011 when the period of Ext.P2 permit is to expire. 2. Admittedly, the vehicle in question has completed 15 years service on 9.3.2008 and is therefore not entitled to ply beyond that date. It was on account of this, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for replacement on 7.3.2008. According to the petitioner despite filing Ext.P3, without passing orders allowing replacement, permit is going to be cancelled and that made him to file this writ petition on 13.2.2008. 3. Relying on the decision in Aysha v. R.T.A., Kasaragode [2006 (3) KLT 1013], while the petitioner contends that it is open to him to apply for replacement any time during the currency of the permit, the learned Government Pleader, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Rashinlal v. R.T.A., Kozhikode [2004(1) KLT 1091], contended that the permit is liable for automatic cancellation, if replacement is not effected before the WPC No. 8753/08 :2 : expiry of the 15 years specified. 4. At the outset, I should say that going by the Division Bench judgment referred to above, the position as canvassed by the learned Government Pleader is liable to be accepted. He is also right in his submission that the judgment in 2006(3) KLT 1013 (supra) was rendered without noticing the earlier Division Bench judgment. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the submission that the petitioner can seek replacement at any time, before the expiry of the permit. I also hold that the vehicle in question could not have been plied beyond 9.3.2008, when the 15 year period was completed. 5. Going by the law as laid down by the Division Bench, Ext.P2 permit is therefore automatically cancelled w.e.f. 9.3.2008. Petitioner contends that he had submitted Ext.P3 replacement application on 7.3.2008 and that orders were not passed thereon. Referring to the Division Bench judgment referred to above, the counsel points out that the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal is recorded to have held as follows: “The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Regional Transport Authority may give reasonable extension for the validity of the period depending on the steps taken by the operator for purchase of chassis, construction of body, obtaining clearances etc. for resuming operation with new or WPC No. 8753/08 :3 : later model vehicles. The learned Single Judge has further observed that in such cases, the Regional Transport Authorities should authorise the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to issue substituted temporary permit to those who are ready to operate vehicles in the said vacancies.” As rightly argued, this direction is not seen reversed by the Division Bench. 6. Since in this case, Ext. P3 application for replacement has been made by the petitioner on 7.3.2008, the 1st respondent ought to have passed the order thereon expeditiously. Since this has not been done, I direct that the 1st respondent shall consider Ext. P3 at any rate within 4 weeks and depending upon the order, suitable variation will be allowed in Ext. P2 permit. I clarify that this judgment will not enable the petitioner to ply vehicle KL-08-C-212 on the strength of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance who shall consider Ext. P3 within 4 weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp