IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17650 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS Y., BATHEL HOUSE, PATTIKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17650/2010 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DTD.24/04/2010. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 30/04/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17650 OF 2010 E ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order rejecting an application for temporary permit. The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8 E 2772. He had applied for the grant of a temporary permit on the route Walayar- Thrissur in the place of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8E 2772. According to the petitioner the basic permit of the vehicle is valid till 31/10/2011. Though the vehicle had completed 15 years of age, a request for time to replace the vehicle was submitted, which is pending consideration of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. Therefore, according to the petitioner he is entitled to be granted a temporary permit in the place of the basic permit so as to ensure that the service is not disrupted. However, his application for the issue of a temporary permit has been rejected for the reason that basic permit is no longer valid. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 has been passed without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner. Therefore, it is bad in the eyes of law. Though the petitioner had approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal against WPC 17650/2010 2 Ext.P2, it is submitted by the counsel Shri. I. Dinesh Menon that the said appeal has been dismissed as not pressed. 2. The learned senior Govt. Pleader submits that the vehicle that was granted the regular permit had completed 15 years on 18/1/2010. Since the vehicle was not replaced with a later model vehicle, the basic permit lapsed on the said date. Therefore, in the absence of a basic permit being available it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of a temporary permit as sought for by him. However, it is submitted that before passing Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was not heard. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P2, rejection of the petitioner's application is unsustainable. Ext.P2 is accordingly set aside. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17650/2010 3 WPC 17650/2010 4