IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30025 of 2007(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- R.UTHAMAN, PAKKALLIL HOUSE, VANDANAM, P.O. AMBALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30025/2007 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 30/05/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 9/2/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WITHOUT EXHIBIT DTD. 3/04/2007 IN M.V.A.A.NO.213/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/06/2007 IN M.V.A.A.NO.213/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/05/2006 IN WPC.NO.12014/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 30025 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 as confirmed by Ext.P4. 2. By Ext.P1 proceedings of 30.5.2006, regular permit was granted to the petitioner. He was granted the maximum time of four months for production of the current records. Again he sought time and that was rejected by Ext.P2 order of the RTA. Against Ext.P2, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the Tribunal as MVAA 213/2007. That also met with dismissal by Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the time runs against him only from the date of service of the order. According to him the proceedings dated 30.5.2006 was signed for communication only on 29.6.2006 and was handed over only on 7.7.2006. If that be so, learned counsel submits that the current records were submitted on WP(C) 30025/07 2 2.11.2006, which was well within the time prescribed under Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 4. The learned Government Pleader has made available to me the local delivery book maintained in the office of the 1st respondent, which indicates that on 29.6.2006 Ext.P1 proceedings were handed over to the petitioner and the same has also been acknowledged by him. 5. Therefore, even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that time runs against him only from the date of service of the order, counting the period of four months from the date of service of the order, the time has expired much before to 2.11.2006, when the petitioner claims to have produced the current records. In that view of the matter, the conclusion in Ext.P4 cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE m/-