IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29409 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SUNIL KUMAR, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, P.O.THALIL, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008 ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.29399 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) Nos.29399 &29409 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions which have been heard together and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment. I am referring to the contentions in Writ Petition No.29399 of 2008 in the first instance. Petitioner applied for a regular permit for operating on the route Kunnamkulam- Wadakkanchery as an ordinary service by offering vehicle KL9/M 5317. By Exhibit P1, the Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of a regular permit. Petitioner produced the vehicle in time. There was delay on the part of the respondent in inspecting the vehicle and convening a timing conference. In the circumstances, petitioner produced a later model KL-9/M 8502 and requested a permit be granted in relation to the said vehicle. That was not considered by the respondent and W.P ( C) Nos.29399 &29409 of 2008 2 hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of this Court in Vinod Thomas Vs. R.T.A Kottayam [ 1999(2) KLJ 1092] and E.P.Alavikutty Vs.The Regional Transport Authority & Ors [2005 (1) KLJ 205] and contended that it is not mandatory to mention the particulars of the vehicle at the time of submission of the vehicle or at the time of consideration. Rule 59 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules provides one month’s time from the grant of certificate of registration. It is also competent for the RTA to extend such time. Now that permit has been granted by the RTA, it is up to the respondent herein to issue the same. There is nothing which stands in the way of permit holder, submitting an application for substituting the vehicle. In the circumstances, suitability of the vehicle will have to be assessed by the Secretary, RTA. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent to inspect the vehicles now offered by the petitioners, assess their suitability and issue permits, if W.P ( C) Nos.29399 &29409 of 2008 3 the vehicles are suitable, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) Nos.29399 &29409 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) Nos.29399 &29409 of 2008 5