IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8161 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.P.SEBASTIAN, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, ARUNA KOCHAL, KOONAMMAVU. BY ADVS. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8161 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route Gothuruth-Ernakulam South via N.Paravoor, Mannanthuruth Ferry, Varapuzha Bridge, Cheranellur and South Chittur in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-7/D-4966 as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, there is no stipulation in Ext.P1 that the permit was subject to settlement of timings. However, the petitioner did not produce the current records of the vehicle for verification and therefore, he sought an extension of time. The application was considered and as per Ext.P3, it has been decided to grant the extension of time but the permit has been made subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner complains that the permit granted to him has not been issued for the reason that the timings have not been settled. He therefore seeks appropriate directions for the issue of his permit after settlement of timings. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner since the permit was granted in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-7/D-4966, there is no necessity of settling the timings of the petitioner. Since a direction to issue the permit only WPC 8161/2010 2 after settlement of timings was absent in Ext.P1, it cannot be incorporated by subsequent proceedings, as done in Ext.P3. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that Ext.P1 is of the year 2005. The application for extension of time has been granted as per Ext.P3 on 19.4.2007, after a lapse of two years. During the time gap, there is a possibility that vacant timings would have to be allotted to other operators. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader a settlement of timings is necessary. 4. I notice that Ext.P1 is dated 5.3.2005. However, pursuant to Ext.P5 the petitioner did not produce the current records of his vehicle for verification. Therefore, the permit was not issued to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for extension of the time to produce current records. As per Ext.P2 the petitioner was directed to produce proof of address. Since there is a time gap of two years between Exts.P1 and P3, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it is not necessary that the vacant timings of vehicle No: KL-7/D-4966 are still vacant. Therefore, the second respondent cannot be found fault with for having stipulated in Ext.P3 that the regular permit granted is subject to settlement of timings. However, it is asserted WPC 8161/2010 3 by the counsel for the petitioner that the timings of the vehicle in whose vacancy he has been granted the permit are still available. This assertion is disputed by the learned Government Pleader. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to settle the timings of the petitioner, if the timings of the vehicle bearing registration No: KL- 7/D-4966 are still available, with the timings of the said vehicle and in the event of such timings being unavailable with a new set of timings and to issue the permit to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8161/2010 4 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: