IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25474 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K.GANESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RAGHUVEER RAO, SRI DEVI NILAYA, PERDALA, BADIADKA POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGISONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.25518/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 25474 & 25518 OF 2008 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T In so far as WP(C) No.25474/08 is concerned, on receipt of the application, Secretary of the RTA responded by Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to replace light motor vehicle stage carriage with a later model medium motor vehicle stage carriage. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the RTA, which deferred the matter for non replacement of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, despite having produced Ext.P4 judgment rendered in identical circumstances, the RTA by Ext.P5 deferred the matter awaiting clarification as to whether Ext.P4 applies to all cases. 2. In so far as WP(C) No.25518/08 is concerned, that application was also deferred as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the RTA for similar reason. 3. Thus the question is whether the petitioners are obliged to replace the vehicles as sought for by the Secretary of the RTA. Ext.P4 produced by the petitioners is a judgment rendered by this court in identical circumstances. In that case, reference has been made to earlier several judgments rendered including one by a Division Bench of this court, where the State Government was directed to consider the entire WPC 25474 & 25518/08 :2 : matter. Thereafter the submission made that the matter is still pending consideration of the Government was also recorded. In view of the pendency of the matter as above before the Government, this court disposed of the earlier writ petitions directing that the permits be renewed, provided applications made are otherwise in order. 4. Following these judgments, including Ext.P3 in WP(C) NO.25518/08 and Ext.P4 in in WP(C) NO.25474/08, I dispose of these writ petitions directing that the 1st respondent shall renew the permit of the petitioners provided, their applications are otherwise in order. In other words, the request made shall not be rejected for the reason that the vehicle offered is a light motor vehicle stage carriage. It is clarified that once Government renders a decision pursuant to the Division Bench judgment, further operation of the vehicle belonging to the petitioners shall be subject to the conditions of the Government decision. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp