IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6693 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ R.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.A.RAMANKUTTY, MATTUKAD HOUSE, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. *ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED R2 M.A.ABDUL KHADER, ISMAIL MANZIL, PITTU PEEDIKA, KODUVAYOOR. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/03/08 IN IA.3761/08. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN - ADDL.R2 SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN -ADDL.R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).6693/2008-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/10/2005. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20/11/2007. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE VEHICLE KL-11/P.1183. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19/11/2007. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/10/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.28117/07. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).28117/07 DTD. 28/10/2007. EXT.R2(b):- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 06/05/2008. //TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.6693/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT A regular permit, covering the route, Palakkad- Nenmara, was granted to the petitioner by Ext.P1. Though timing conference was also held, there was delay in issuing the permit and therefore the petitioner filed W.P(c).No. 28117/2007 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.R2 (a) judgment dated 22.10.2007 directing implementation of Ext.P1 within one month. In the meantime, though consequent on the direction issued by this court in W.P(c). No.28429/2007 filed by the additional 2nd respondent, the RTA was directed to issue permit in pursuance to Ext.P1, the matter was still delayed at the level of the Secretary, RTA. In the meanwhile, petitioner submits that he sold the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11/N- 8900 and sought for replacement by offering a later model 2 vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/P 1183. The request in this behalf was made by the petitioner on 1.1.2008, submits the Government Pleader. On account of the change in the vehicle offered by the petitioner, the Secretary did not issue the permit and on account of the delay, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The counsel for the addl. 2nd respondent submits that, when in respect of the earlier vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/N 8900, this court had directed implementation of Ext.P1, by Ext.R2(a) judgment, the petitioner's right is confined to that particular vehicle. It is also contended that, since the implementation of Ext.P1 has already been sought for and has been granted by Ext.R2(a) judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to file a second writ petition. For that reason itself, awarding this writ petition deserves to be dismissed, submits the counsel. 3. Heard both parties. After considering the arguments on either side, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. 3 4. True, in Ext.P1 a particular vehicle was offered and that particular vehicle is no longer available with the petitioner. It is for that reason that the petitioner sought replacement by a later model vehicle. If I accept the contention of the learned counsel for the additional 2nd respondent, that will lead to a situation where the petitioner will not get the fruits of Ext.P1 and that cannot be the situation. So long as Ext.P1 holds the field and so long as the replacement of the vehicle is permissible before the granted permit is issued, the petitioner, in my view, is entitled to the permit in terms of Ext.P1. I am also not impressed by the arguments raised by the counsel for the addl.2nd respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable. From the facts it is evident that it was subsequent to Ext.R1(a) judgment that the request for replacement was made. According to the petitioner, the reason for the delay is the refusal of the authority to allow the replacement. Since these factual developments have taken place only long after Ext.R1(a) judgment, this writ 4 petition is maintainable. Accordingly, it is directed that the permit shall be issued by the respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5