IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32911 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.KURIACHAN, S/O.M.C.MATHAI, AGED YEARS, RESIDING NEAR MATTAPPALLY HOUSE, PANCODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 32911/09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DT. 16-9-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 32911 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 proceedings of the RTA, Muvattupuzha, whereby the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner has been adjourned on the ground that the application does not give the details of the vehicle offered, such as the wheel base and the maximum laden weight as required under Section 70(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioner, for consideration of an application for regular permit, such details are not necessary to be furnished in the application. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P1 and quash the same. 2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to forthwith consider and pass orders on the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner on the route Perumbavoor- Kalamassery, adjourned vide Ext. P1, on merits without insisting on furnishing of details of the stage carriage intended to be put in operation.” The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Aboobacker v. RTA, 2005(1) KLT 987 in support of his contention. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the matter was adjourned only to help the petitioner to provide those details also so that his applications can be considered by the RTA. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. When an application for regular permit is submitted, the respondent has to take a decision on the same. If any statutory requirements have not been complied with, certainly the respondent W.P.C. No. 32911/09 -: 2 :- can reject the application for that reason if that reason is valid. In this case, the petitioner asserts that the law does not require furnishing of details of the vehicle such as wheel base and maximum laden weight in the application for the purpose of consideration of the application. On the other hand, he would submit that in view of Aboobacker's case, that is not a mandatory condition at all. That being so, the respondent is bound to consider the application insofar as the petitioner has got a case that the petitioner is not statutorily bound to furnish the details as stated in Ext. P1. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for permit in the next meeting of the RTA. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/