IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15695 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- AGIE GEORGE, AGIE MANDIRAM, THRIPPALAZHIKOM, KUNDRA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.T.P.JAMES, S/O.PAPPACHAN, THADAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR LMS HOSPITAL, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15695 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a regular stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kollam Andamukkom-Malanada with the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL 2/M 9794, had submitted an application for the renewal of his regular permit which had expired on 10.8.2009. His application was rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection in MVAA No.149 of 2010 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT' for short). The STAT allowed the appeal and directed the reconsideration of his application. Since the petitioner's application for renewal of his regular permit is still pending consideration of the first respondent, the petitioner submitted an application for issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988. However, the same has been rejected. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the rejection order Ext.P4 is passed in violation of the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment of the STAT. The learned Senior Government Pleader also does not dispute that Ext.P4 is in WPC No.15695/2010 2 violation of the directions contained in Ext.P3. In the above circumstances, the order of the second respondent, evidenced herein by Ext.P4, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the issue of a temporary permit in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon in compliance with the directions of the STAT, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The application of the petitioner for the renewal of his regular permit as well as transfer of permit shall be considered by placing the same before the next meeting of the first respondent or within a period of two months, which ever is earlier. K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE ) vps WPC No.15695/2010 3 WPC No.15695/2010 4