IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15273 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.M.A.MAJEED, PALOOR HOUSE, NARANGAPETTA, MANNARKKAD. BY ADV.MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15273/2009 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 25/07/2008. P2: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMITS. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 7/10/2002. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/07/2004 IN WPC.NO.4475/2004. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/03/2009 IN MVARP NO.412/2008. P6: COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WPC.NO.15598/2008. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.15598/2008 DTD. 18/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-9/L-660 and he applied to operate on the intra-district route Malampadam-Pombra. The permit was originally granted vide Ext.P3, which will show that the RC book of the vehicle KL-9/L-660 was made available to the Regional Transport Authority, at the time of grant of the permit. Apparently on the premise that, in spite of the production of the RC book at the time of grant, a further production of the RC book will be necessary before the issuance of the permit, in terms of Rule 159(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules., the petitioner made a request for extension of time, which was also granted. According to the petitioner, the RC book of the old vehicle was W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 :: 2 :: produced on 16.4.2003, and the timings were settled on 24.7.2003. But before operating the said vehicle, it was alleged that the vehicle was found to be mechanically unfit and therefore a request for change of the vehicle was made on 12.6.2003. Essentially the request was for replacement of the vehicle along with a request for extension of the time for production of the RC book. 2. The application for replacement of the vehicle was to be filed in time and in the meanwhile, he applied for and obtained a temporary permit to operate on the route with a subsequent model vehicle i.e. KL-09/K-477. The petitioner has been operating with the temporary permit on the said route. 3. He filed an application for re-issuance of the temporary permit. Thereafter he approached this court in W.P.(C)No.15598/08, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the Secretary, W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 :: 3 :: Regional Transport Authority, to consider the question of re-issuance of the temporary permit. 4. Pursuant to the judgment Ext.P7, re- issuance of the petitioner's application was considered by the 2nd respondent in the meeting held on 25.7.2008 and the Regional Transport Authority proceeded to revoke the permit originally granted on 7.10.2002 in relation to the stage carriage KL-9/L- 660 on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the current records even after the lapse of 5 years. The application for temporary permit was rejected on the ground that the route overlaps a portion of the route for a distance of 05 kms from Chirakkalpadi To MES College, Mannarkkad covered by the notified route Palakkad-Kannur vide notification dated 13.11.1962. This decision Ext.P1 was taken up before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The direction in Ext.P1 rejecting W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 :: 4 :: the application for temporary permit was later reversed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner is now operating with the temporary permit. The direction in Ext.P1 revoking the regular permit already granted was challenged in M.V.A.R.P.No.412/08 and the same has been dismissed vide Ext.P5. Exts.P1 and P5 have been challenged in this writ petition. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 6. Revocation of the permit for non- production of current records is permissible under Rule 159(2) of the Rules, which reads as follows: “When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for permit, owing to the fact that he is not on that date in possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 :: 5 :: Transport Authority or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority so that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application.” 7. But, such revocation may not be possible in a case where the RC book of the vehicle was produced even at the stage of grant of the permit, as has happened in this case, as evidenced by Ext.P1. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge of this court in Ext.P4 judgment. 8. The revocation of the permit is possible in terms of Rule 174 of the Rules. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority finds that the permit already granted by the Regional Transport Authority W.P.(C).No.15273 of 2009 :: 6 :: is liable to be revoked, he is liable to issue notice to the petitioner and hear him. That has not been done in this case. 9. In the result, Ext.P5 is set aside and Ext.P1, to the extent to which the petitioner's regular permit has been revoked, is also set aside. But this judgment will not stand in the way of the Regional Transport Authority exercising the powers under Rule 174 of the Rules, after following the procedure mentioned above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//