IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19209 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ F.M.RAZACK, MATHILAKATH PARAMBIL, P.O.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19209 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator and the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13/F 5000. Another stage carriage bearing registration No.KED 2196/- was conducting services on the route Kuttikkadavu-Kozhikode on the strength of a valid regular permit till 6.7.2007. Though the permit was renewed thereafter, the permit holder has not availed the permit till date by producing the current records thereof. Since the regular operator is not conducting service, the petitioner had sought for the issue of a temporary permit to conduct service in the place of the original permit holder. However, his application was rejected. The petitioner challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Authority and by Ext.P1, the STAT directed the issue of the temporary permit, Subsequently, though the petitioner offered a new vehicle, the temporary permit was W.P.(C).No.19209 of 2010 2 not issued. 2. In the above circumstance he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 2279/2010, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 directing the respondent to issue a temporary permit in compliance with the order of the STAT. Accordingly, Ext.P3 permit was issued to him. However, when he submitted Ext.P4 application for the re-issue of his temporary permit the same was rejected, as per Ext.P5 proceedings. 3. The counsel for the petitioner points out that absolutely no reasons have been stated for the rejection of his application. According to the petitioner, since the regular service was not being operated, there was a temporary need in existence. Therefore, he prays for setting aside Ext.P5. The learned Government Pleader is not in a position to support the reasons that are given in Ext.P5. 4. There cannot be any doubt that a temporary need is in existence since the original permit holder is not W.P.(C).No.19209 of 2010 3 conducting the service. In the above circumstances, the authority ought to have granted the request of the petitioner and reissued his temporary permit. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is not sustainable. Therefore, Ext.P5 is set aside. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent shall consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P1 and P2 and shall pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 10 days of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mns