IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21511 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MARY VARGHESE, KOMBASSERIL, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., ALAPPUZHA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 21511 OF 2010 L ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kayamkulam-Thiruvalla on the strength of a regular permit valid up to 4/7/2012. She has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent by which an application submitted by her for the grant of time to replace her vehicle has been rejected. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application on 20/5/2010 seeking four months time to produce a new vehicle and to replace the same with her earlier vehicle bearing registration No: KL-4/C 2379 that was completing 15 years on 16/6/2010. As per Ext.P3, her request for extension of time for production of a later model vehicle has been rejected. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though her permit was valid up to 4/7/2012 and her vehicle was to complete fifteen years only on 16/6/2010, Ext.P3 has proceeded on the assumption that her permit had already expired as on the date of the said proceedings, 27/5/2010. The above assumption is submitted to be wrong and therefore, it is contended that Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside. The counsel has also relied on the decision WPC 21511/2010 2 of this Court in Aysha v. R.T.A, Kasaragod {2006(3) KLT 1013} to submit that suspension of permits can be only on one of the grounds mentioned in Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). Failure to produce a later model vehicle being not a ground mentioned under Section 86, it is submitted that Ext.P3 is unsustainable. 3. The learned senior Govt. Pleader places reliance on the decision in Raghavan v. RTO, Kollam {2001(2) KLT 209(D.B)} to contend that a clause similar to the one seen incorporated in Ext.P1 to the effect that the vehicle should be replaced before a particular date has been held to be valid and binding on the permit holder. Therefore, it is submitted that the failure on the part of the petitioner to replace her vehicle with a later model one, entailed cancellation of her permit. For the above reason, it is contended that Ext.P3 is perfectly justified and not liable to be interfered with. It is also submitted that, during the period of currency of the regular permit of the petitioner if she produces a later model vehicle her request for replacement would be considered, notwithstanding Ext.P3. 4. I notice that Ext.P3 is dated 27/5/2010. Since the petitioner had time up to 16/6/2010 to produce a later model WPC 21511/2010 3 vehicle, the statement in Ext.P3 to the effect that the petitioner's permit stands cancelled in view of references 2 & 3 is without any justification. Since the petitioner has a right to produce a later model vehicle at any time before the expiry of her permit, the said right cannot be taken away. The learned senior Govt. Pleader also has no dispute on the above aspect. 5. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to produce a later model vehicle at any time during the currency of her regular permit and to seek replacement of her vehicle. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 21511/2010 4