IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5921 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.T.THOMAS, KAVUMKAL, ELAMPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJESH K.JACOB, KAYYUNNAPARA HOUSE, ANICKAD EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686001. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682011. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No./59212011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER VALID TILL 25.4.2011 DATED 18.12.2010 EXT.P1(a). TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER VALID TILL 25.4.2011 DATED 18.12.2010 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2010 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION IN MVARP NO.48 OF 2011 DATED 29.1.2011. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION IN MVARP NO.53 OF 2011 DATED 29.1.2011. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.2011. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5921 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are stage carriage operators operating stage carriages on the route Elamkadu – Panathur. Before the validity of the regular permits issued to them expired, they applied for renewal. Pending disposal of the application for renewal temporary permits were being issued. The last of the temporary permits issued to the petitioners was valid till 25.12.2010. While so, on 23.12.2010 the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam considered the applications submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the permit and orders were reserved on the applications. Two days later the temporary permits were re- issued for a further period of four months from 26.12.2010 as can be seen from Exts.P1 and P1(a). Thereafter Ext.P2 order dated 23.12.2010 was served on the petitioners. By that order the applications for renewal of the regular permits submitted by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that as the route length exceeds 140 kms., the petitioners cannot operate an ordinary service on the route. The applications submitted by the W.P(C).No.5921 of 2011 -:2:- petitioners for conversion of the service as super express service was also declined on various grounds. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed revision petitions under section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 4.2.2011 the revision petitions were allowed after notice to the respondents. Shortly thereafter by Ext.P4 order passed on 18.2.2011 the second respondent informed the petitioners that in view of Ext.P2 order rejecting their applications for regular permits, the temporary permits issued to them evidenced by Exts.P1 and P1(a) stand cancelled. Ext.P4 order, a copy whereof was served on the petitioners on 21.2.2011, is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that before Ext.P4 order was passed they were not put on notice and heard. It is also contended that as Ext.P2 order stands set aside the application for renewal stand revived and therefore the petitioners are entitled to temporary permits under section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 24.2.2011 this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, passed an interim order staying the operation and implementation of Ext.P4 order. When the writ petition came up for further hearing today, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the W.P(C).No.5921 of 2011 -:3:- respondents submitted that Ext.P2 order has been set aside and the Regional Transport Authority has been directed to reconsider the applications for renewal of the regular permits submitted by the petitioners. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that it was passed solely on the ground that by Ext.P2 order the applications submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the regular permits stand rejected. In view of the fact that Ext.P2 order has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has directed reconsideration of the applications for renewal of the regular permits, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct that the temporary permits issued to the petitioners (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) shall be valid for all purposes and shall be renewed periodically, if necessary and applied for, till orders are passed on the applications for renewal of the regular permits submitted by the petitioners in terms of the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M..V.A.R.P.Nos. 48 and 53 of 2011. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.5921 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th March, 2011