IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17178 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.M.S.VENUGOPAL, V.VIHAR HOUSE [THAILAM PARAMBIL], SABARMATHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17178 OF 2010 V ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner had applied for the grant of a temporary permit of four months' duration to conduct services on the route Vypin- Kizhakke Appangad, an intra regional route falling within the jurisdiction of the respondent. The temporary permit was sought to operate a substitute service in the place of a defaulted route bus. The respondent rejected the permit on the ground that the regular permit issued to the route had expired. The order of the respondent was challenged in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short) and the Tribunal allowed the same as per Ext.P1 judgment. The STAT has in the said appeal issued the following direction:- “In the result, this appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the second respondent is directed to grant substitute temporary permit to the appellant under Section 87(1)(c) of the M.V.Act for a maximum period of four months or till the regular permit resumes services, whichever is earlier.” 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P1 contains a positive direction to issue a temporary permit for a period of four WPC 17178/2010 2 months or till the regular permit holder resumes service whichever is earlier. However, in gross violation of the above direction Ext.P2 temporary permit has been issued by the respondent limiting the period thereof to 20 days. Ext.P2 is challenged as being in violation of the direction of the STAT contained in Ext.P1 judgment. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader also. 3. A reading of the directions extracted above shows that it only prescribes a maximum period of duration for the temporary permit that is to be issued by the respondent. The direction does not positively mandate that a temporary permit of four months duration itself should be issued. The STAT has put only a rider that the permit should not exceed the maximum period of four months. Consequently, the authority is free to issue temporary permits of any shorter duration. In the above view of the matter the impugned proceedings Ext.P2 does not suffer from any infirmity as alleged. The petitioner is free to apply for fresh temporary permits on the expiry of Ext.P2. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17178/2010 3 WPC 17178/2010 4