IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31983 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.PRADEEPAN, GEETHA NIVAS, VENGAD.P.O., THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, (THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VATAKARA), PIN-673 101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31983 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was operating stage carriage service on the route Guruvayoor - Kannur with the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 13/M 7027. The said permit was valid only up to 9.4.2006. Prior to the expiry of the permit, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal. After the submission of the said application for renewal of permit, the vehicle was replaced by a later model vehicle bearing registration No. KL 13/N 5767. The application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA on 26.3.2010. Thereupon, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as MVAA No. 164 of 2010 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. As per Ext.P2 judgment, the impugned order dated 26.3.2010 was set aside and the first respondent was directed to grant renewal of permit to the petitioner, if the request is otherwise in order. According to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application for issuance of permit less certificate. Ext.P3 WPC.31983/2010 : 2 : application was rejected by the respondent as per Ext.P4 order holding that the request could not be considered while retaining the application for renewal of permit and without surrendering the permit. It was further held that in such circumstance the request for permit less certificate in respect stage carriage KL 13 N 5767, without disturbing the application for renewal of permit could not be considered and therefore, Ext.P3 was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that since the route length exceeds 140kms and that the permit was given for operating as super fast, the petitioner could not operate on the route with stage carriage No. KL13 N 5767 as it has already crossed the maximum period prescribed under the Rule viz., 5 years. According to the petitioner, the respondent has issued Ext.P4 order without considering the aforesaid reasons and circumstances. The fact is that with the vehicle in question, he could not operate on the route as super fast. Obviously, the aforesaid relevant aspects were not at all considered by the respondent while issuing Ext.P4. In Ext.P4 it is stated : “Retaining the application for renewal of regular permit and without surrendering the regular permit, the permit less certificate cannot be issued as per Motor Vehicles Act & Rules.” Respondent did not cite the provisions which would be violated in case of issuance of a permit less certificate as requested by WPC.31983/2010 : 3 : the petitioner. Any order of rejection should invariably contain the reason/reasons for rejection. If only the reasons are reflected in such an order the aggrieved party would be able to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings in an effective manner. In that view of the matter, the issue requires re- consideration at the hands of the respondent. To enable such a consideration Ext.P4 is set aside. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider the whole issue afresh with notice to the petitioner and to pass orders on Ext.P3. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) No.9012/2007 dated 29.3.2007 is relevant in the context of the case. It will be open to the petitioner to raise contention based on the same before the respondent and in which event it shall also be considered by the respondent. This shall be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge