IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 2655 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15065/2006 Dated 05/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ THE SECRETARY, QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., NO.Q 420, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. K.JALALUDHEEN, KIDER MYTHEEN, PANAYIL PADINJATTATHIL, VALATHINGAL P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2659 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.2655 & 2659 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. These appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2007 disposing of W.P.(C) No.15065/2006 & O.P.NO.8974/2003. W.A.No.2659/2007: 2. The appellant was having a regular permit on the route Chavara-Elampalloor granted in respect of the stage carriage KRQ/1314. Since the permit was going to expire on 22.1.2001, the appellant applied for renewal of that permit on 7.3.2001. The renewal was granted on 20.7.2001. According to the appellant that decision was never communicated to it. Later, the petitioner applied for a fresh regular permit on the route on 1.7.2002 for a period of five years. Since the appellant did not avail the permit already granted, as per Ext.P2 decision dated 20.7.2001 on agenda item No.113, the said renewal was revoked by the R.T.A., Kollam, at its meeting held W.A.Nos.2655 & 2659/2007 2 on 27.5.2003. As per agenda item No.114, the application for fresh regular permit on the route dated 1.7.2002 was rejected. Challenging Ext.P2, the Original Petition No.8974/2003 was filed. The Original Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 3. According to the appellant it was never informed of the revocation of the renewal of the permit granted to it on 20.7.2001. Further, ExtP2 decision was taken to cancel the renewal without notice to the appellant. W.A.No.2655/2007: 4. The appellant was operating on the route Chavara- Elampalloor on the strength of a temporary permit from 16.11.1981. When the appellant applied for reissue of the temporary permit, the same was considered along with the application for regular permit submitted by the 3rd respondent on the very same route. The application of the appellant for temporary permit was rejected and that of the 3rd respondent for regular permit was allowed. Later, the permit was issued in the vacant timings of the appellant's vehicle. Aggrieved by the grant of the appellant's time schedule to the 3rd respondent, the W.A.Nos.2655 & 2659/2007 3 appellant filed MVRP.No.295/2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said revision by Ext.P4 order. Challenging the order of the R.T.A., Ext.P3, and the order of the S.T.A.T. mentioned above, the writ petition No.15065/2007 was filed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of this Writ Petition, this writ appeal is filed. 5. The learned Single Judge found that there was no ready vehicle available with the appellant for availing the renewal granted. The appellant also failed to produce the vehicle within the time limit stipulated by this Court. Therefore, the Original Petition and Writ Petition were dismissed. 6. When the permit was renewed, the appellant did not have a ready vehicle. So, it could not avail of the renewal granted. Even on the appellant's showing it got a vehicle on lease only long after the time limit for producing current records, for issuing the renewed permit, was over. The claim of the appellant that it did not know about the renewal of the permit cannot be accepted. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in W.P.(C) No.15065/2006, it is specifically W.A.Nos.2655 & 2659/2007 4 sated that the renewal order was communicated to the appellant. There is no reply affidavit filed in that writ petition. Therefore, it should be taken that the order has been served on the appellant. So, for the failure of the appellant to produce the current records of the vehicle in time, the permit was rightly cancelled. Since the appellant did not have any regular permit on the route, its objection against the time schedule granted to the 3rd respondent in W.A.No.2655/2007 is unsustainable. So, the Review Petition was rightly dismissed by the S.T.A.T. We find nothing wrong with the grant of permit to the 3rd respondent in W.A.No.2655/2007, as there was a vacancy caused by the non- operation of the appellant's stage carriage. In the result, the Writ Appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. But, the dismissal will not affect the right, if any, on the appellant to move for fresh permit on the route. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps