IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14501 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PRINCIPAL, MARKAZ ENGLISH MEDIUM SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARANTHOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KODUVALLY - 673 571. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.14501 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE R.C.BOOK EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 18.10.2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH CHELAN. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEE FOR RENEWING CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.14501 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Principal of Markaz English Medium Senior Secondary School, Karanthoor, Kozhikode. The school owns a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-10B/1074 which is used for transporting students to and from the school and their residences. The permit of the bus expired on 17.10.2010. Though the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal on 11.10.2010, he complains that no orders have been passed on his application by the respondent, till date. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of appropriate directions to the respondent. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner has remitted the necessary fees for renewal of his permit. However, it is contended that the age limit for educational institution buses have been fixed at 15 years and since the petitioner's bus has crossed the said age limit, his permit has not been WPC No.14501 of 2011 2 renewed. The counsel for the petitioner points out that no communication in this regard has been issued to him nor any orders passed on his application. If the petitioner is not entitled to be issued a permit in respect of the vehicle offered by him, it is pointed out that he is at least entitled to be given an order rejecting his application. Since no such orders have been passed, it is contended that his application has not been considered at all. 3. The counter affidavit of the respondent reveals that the petitioner has already applied for renewal of permit in respect of his vehicle. Ext.P3 is the application that is said to have been submitted by the petitioner. The counter affidavit does not reveal that any orders are passed on Ext.P3, till date. Since the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal and since he has also remitted the necessary fees, the petitioner is certainly justified in contending that he is entitled to an order on his application whether it be one granting the permit or rejecting the same. If the vehicle offered by the petitioner is not fit enough to be issued with a permit, it is certainly necessary that the said fact be intimated to the petitioner WPC No.14501 of 2011 3 by the issue of appropriate proceedings. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P3, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/