IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34777 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THRESSIAMMA THOMAS, KULAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. A.J.JOSEPH, ALUMKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34777 of 2009(N) APPENDIX PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11.12.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.11.2009 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 24624/09 DATED 26.8.2009. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 34777 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the holder of a regular permit, which permit was being operated by a vehicle belonging to the 2nd petitioner on lease arrangement. The permit was valid till 6.5.2007. An application for renewal of the permit was submitted, as early as on 28.12.2006, which is pending before the 1st respondent. After the expiry of the regular permit on 6.5.2007, service is being operated on the strength of successive temporary permits issued under Section 87 (1) (d) of the Act. Since the vehicle used has become old, from 1.10.2009 onwards service has been stopped. The 1st petitioner has made arrangement for procuring a new stage carriage for resumption of the service, but application for replacement of the vehicle covered by the permit can be filed only after application for the renewal is sanctioned and renewal is endorsed in the permit. In view of the discontinuance of the service, the vehicle has been returned to the 2nd petitioner, and he wants to dispose of the same for which purpose he has entered into an agreement of sale W.P(C) No. 34777 of 2009 -2- with a 3rd person. But for prospective purchaser to get the vehicle registered in his name, the 2nd respondent has to issue a “permit- less certificate”, since the vehicle has been released from the permit. For the same, the petitioners have filed Ext.P2 request before the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that in exactly identical circumstances, this court has by Ext.P3 judgment directed the issue of such certificate without insisting on surrender of the regular permit. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider ans pass orders on Ext.P2 application, in the light of Ext.P3 judgment. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 as filed by the 1st petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider the applicability of Ext.P3 judgment to the request made by the petitioner and if the fact situations in both are identical, certificate shall be issued without insisting on surrender of the regular permit. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs