IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34350 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.RAJITHA, 13/162, MALIYACKAL HOUSE PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 34350/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT. EXT.P2 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. EXT.P3 APPLICATION DT. 21-11-2009. EXT.P4 SALE AGREEMENT DT. 19-11-2009. EXT.P5 REQUEST DT.24-11-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34350 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit. The permit was being operated using an old vehicle. The petitioner filed Ext. P3 application for replacement of the vehicle. In the meantime, the petitioner wants to dispose of the old vehicle for which a clearance certificate, which is commonly referred to as “permit less certificate”, is necessary. The petitioner submitted Ext. P5 application for such a certificate. The petitioner's grievance is that the same is not considered on the ground that the same can be considered only after the regular permit is surrendered for cancellation. According to the petitioner, in view of the decisions of this Court in W.P(C) Nos. 24624/2009 and 34777/2009, such a condition cannot be insisted upon. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P5 without insisting on the petitioner surrendering the permit. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent is bound to consider Ext. P5 application and pass an order either way in accordance with law. If, for disposal of such application the judgments in the above said writ petitions are applicable, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the same also. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P5 application in the light of the decisions of this Court in W.P(C) Nos. 24624/2009 and 34777/2009 and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/