IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15618 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.N.BIJUMON, PADAVUMPURATH HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15618 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a stage carriage operator has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 order of the first respondent directing him to apply for a fresh permit on the route for his new vehicle. The petitioner is conducting services on the route Koothattukulam-Thodpuzha on the strength of a regular permit that is valid till 17.8.2011. He applied for replacement of his existing vehicle with a later model vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-17/D 5599. However, the application for replacement was not considered by the second respondent stating that there is more than 25% difference in seats between the original vehicle and the vehicle that is produced for replacement. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13560/2010 challenging the said proceedings of the second respondent. This Court directed a consideration of the application for replacement. 2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the WPC No.15618/2010 2 Regional Transport Authority considered the application by circulation and the Deputy Transport Commissioner directed grant of the replacement. However, the District Collector, Chairman of the RTA directed the petitioner to file an application for a fresh permit. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary for the petitioner to file a fresh application in view of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 174(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The learned Senior Government Pleader opposes the above submission by pointing out that there is a variation in the seating capacity between the earlier vehicle and that the vehicle that is offered for replacement. The earlier vehicle has only a seating capacity of 28 while the present vehicle has a seating capacity of 38. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. Rule 174(3) reads as follows: “If the new vehicle proposed does not differ in material respects from the old, the application for replacement of the vehicle WPC No.15618/2010 3 may be allowed. If there is material difference between the two vehicles, the application shall be treated as if it were for a fresh permit”. It can be seen from the above that in cases where the new vehicle that is offered differs materially from the vehicle that was earlier being used, the application is to be treated as if it were one for a fresh permit. A similar provision is available in the case of variation of conditions of permit also in Section 80(3). Section 80(3) reads as follows: “An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permits by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit”. 7. In both these provisions, it is not required for the applicant to make a fresh application. In the contingency that is contemplated by the above provisions, the authority is directed to treat the pending application as one for the issue of a fresh permit and to consider the same on the WPC No.15618/2010 4 merits. In view of the above, the direction in Ext.P4 to the petitioner to apply for a fresh permit in respect of the new vehicle is absolutely unjustified and uncalled for. The respondents are bound to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner, treating the same as an application for a fresh permit, if it is found that there is difference between the original vehicle and the new vehicle in any material particulars. 8. In view of the above, the condition in Ext.P4 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of his vehicle in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, if necessary by circulation also, and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/