IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22559 of 2005(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.DAMODARAN, S/O.K.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 45, THATTAN VALAPPIL, NORTH KOTTENCHERY P.O., MANIKOTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KISHORE KUMAR A., S/O.GOPALA A., ANAKKAL HOUSE, DHARMA NAGAR P.O., VARKADY, VIA-MANJESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1,2 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R2 DT.5.8.2004. P2: TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF R1 AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 29.11.2004 IN ITEM NO.18. P3: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL VIDE MVAA 66/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE STAT, ERNAKULAM. P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE STAT, ERNAKULAM IN MVAA NO.66/2005 DT.15.7.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.22559 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order whereunder the STAT confirmed cancellation of permit granted to the petitioner for interstate operation of a stage carriage. The petitioner transferred the vehicle to third respondent and applied for endorsement of transfer. Even though transfer was approved on 19.11.2003, the transferee did not comply with the Rules by producing current records of the vehicle within three months. Consequently transfer was not endorsed. Petitioner's case is that vehicle was not in operation and another vehicle was operated on substitute temporary permit. Obviously petitioner and the transferee were not in operation of the vehicle from 2003 onwards. The permit granted to the petitioner also expired in 2005. Therefore, there is no justification for direction to the respondents to renew the permit. However, petitioner is free to apply for a new permit and I am sure the respondents will take into account the interstate operation that petitioner was carrying on prior to the fresh application. If any such application is filed, the same will be 2 considered and orders passed without any delay. The W.P. is closed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms