IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33321 of 2007(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. M.C.SUNDARAN, AGED 36, S/O.CHANDRAN, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH, VYPIN. 2. D.I.GOPINATHA PRABHU, S/O.KRISHNA PRABHU, DEVASWOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERAI, PALLIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33321/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM P.ST.S.A. DT 31.12.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2004. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the AGENDA FOR THE MEETING DT 27.1.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DT 27.1.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUMFILED BY THE 1ST petitioner AS MVARP NO.205/2005 DT 28.6.05 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS). EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO.205/05 DT 29.11.2005. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2005. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 20.2.2006. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DT 21.1.2007. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 22.2.2007. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF KL- 07/AH.2463. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 19.7.07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33321 OF 2007 (P) ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12 order passed by the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner was granted Ext.P4 order granting regular permit with a condition that all trips should be operated touching Vypin. Against the condition in Ext.P4, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P5 revision before the Tribunal and by Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal allowed the revision and set aside the condition imposed in Ext.P4 and ordered grant of permit. 2. Meanwhile, the vehicle and the permit were transferred into the name of the second petitioner and according to the petitioners, second petitioner also applied for implementing Ext.P6 judgment of the Tribunal as per Ext.P9 representation made by him to the 2nd respondent. Irrespective of that, by Ext.P12, 1st respondent rejected the application made by the first petitioner on the ground that he is no longer holding the permit for the vehicle. It is challenging this proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 3. As already seen, the second petitioner, the transferee of the vehicle and the permit, specifically contends that he too had made Ext.P9 WPC 33321/07 :2 : representation requesting for giving the benefit of Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal. In any case, he being the transferee of the vehicle and the permit and by Ext.P6, the Tribunal had set aside the condition imposed in Ext.P4, I feel that the second petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall implement Ext.P6 judgment rendered by the STAT in MVARP No.205/05 in relation to the permit that was granted by Ext.P4, which now stands transferred in the name of the second petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp