IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 15TH MAY 2009 / 25TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13680 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBBANNA ALVA, S/O AITHAPPA ALVA, BANABETTU HOUSE, MIYAPADAVU P.O., MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GP SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13680/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a registered owner of a Light Motor Vehicle, was operating the said vehicle on the route Kasargod - Thalappady on the strength of Ext.P1 permit, which expired on 11.5.2009. Petitioner sought for renewal of the permit and thereupon, Ext.P2 notice was issued by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to replace the existing Light Motor Vehicle with a Heavy/Medium Motor Vehicle. Petitioner had in the meanwhile, sought for grant of temporary permit pending renewal of the regular permit. The stand similar to the one taken by the second respondent, requiring replacement of Light Motor Vehicles with Heavy/Medium Motor vehicles was earlier considered by a Bench of this Court in W.A.2056/2003. This Court held that it is for the Government to decide the question, as evidenced by Ext.P4 judgment. But the Government has not taken a final decision pursuant to Ext.P4. In the meanwhile, this Court has on several occasions, directed renewal of existing permits granted in W.P.(C).13680/2009 2 relation to Light Motor Vehicles without insisting upon a replacement of the same. 2. The issue is therefore, covered in favour of the petitioner as per Exts.P5, P6 and P7 judgments as also other judgments. 3. In the result, after hearing counsel on both sides, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application for renewal of Ext.P1 permit without insisting on the petitioner replacing the Light Motor Vehicle with the Heavy/Medium Motor vehicle. The application for renewal should be dealt with, without reference to the above condition. If the permit is renewed, it shall also be made clear that the petitioner will be bound by the decision that the Government takes pursuant to the direction issued in W.A.2056/2003. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs