IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37224 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- REMA MOHANKUMAR, W/O.MOHAN KUMAR 49 YEARS, KALATHIL LAKSHMIPURAM KOTTA EDATHALA PO., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37224/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 27.8.2008 IN ITEM NO.39. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT WHICH CONTAINS THE ENDORSEMENT REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF THE REGULAR PERMIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 37224 OF 2008 (F) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 in so far as the 2nd respondent has imposed a condition that the vehicle shall be replaced with a vehicle having wheel base 510 cm on or before 14/1/2012. The argument raised is that while granting renewal as per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent had not imposed any such condition and therefore it was impermissible for the 2nd respondent to have unilaterally imposed the aforesaid condition in Ext.P2 while implementing Ext.P1 order. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the condition mentioned above was imposed by the 2nd respondent acting upon a general direction that was issued by the 1st respondent on an earlier occasion. It is also pointed out that in MVARP No.305/08, the said general directions have been set aside by the STAT. 3. If the facts are as stated by the learned Government Pleader, it is obvious that there is no legal sanction in the condition that has been imposed by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2. Therefore, the condition imposed WPC 37224/08 :2 : in Ext.P2 that the petitioner should replace the vehicle as directed therein will stand set aside. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp