IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17420 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.THOMAS, SHINE COTTAGE, POOYAPPALLI, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 17420 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 21th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was operating with regular permit on the route Kulathupuzha-Kollam with Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL 9/B 9423. The vehicle became unfit for operation. Petitioner then sought to operate Stage Carriage No.KL 2/R 2801 on a temporary permit. In the meanwhile, he submitted application for regular permit as per Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is which is still pending consideration. 2. Petitioner's regular permit which was being operated earlier was valid till 27.5.2008. On expiry of the permit, petitioner continued operation on the basis of a temporary permit which was being granted for successive periods of 4 months. But Ext.P7 application for a temporary permit on 20 days submitted on 08.04.2009 was rejected under Ext.P8. Ext.P8 was confirmed by the Tribunal by Ext.P10 and this has been challenged int his writ petition. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner has also submitted Ext.P13 application for temporary permit, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner will have to be treated as one under W.P.(C). No. 17420 OF 2009 2 Section 87 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. Both the first respondent and the Tribunal had gone on to find that the application for temporary permit was not submitted during the currency of the period of regular permit or after an application for renewal was submitted in that regard. The said finding is correct and does not require interference. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct when he submits that notwithstanding the above since a Stage Carriage was operating on the said route and the said operation has ceased, there is a temporary need in terms of 87(1)(c) of the Act, Ext.P13 application shall be considered in accordance with law by the first respondent and decision shall be taken untrammeled by Exts.P8, P10 and P12. A decision thereon shall be taken within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/