IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14211 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SINI HARIHARAN,W/O.HARIHARAN, VAISAGHAM, ATHALLUR, THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.BEERAN,KARUVANGATT KAVIL PO, NADUVATTAM, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN 676 505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 14211/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PERMIT RELATING TO BUS NO.KL-10V-9721 ISSUED AND RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 13.4.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P1. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE INCOMING VEHICLE NO.KL-10R-8830 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14211 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Puthenpally-Parappanangadi via. Ponnani on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit. With a view to replace the existing stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10V-9721, which has a seating capacity of 28 passengers, with a later model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10R-8830 having a seating capacity of 33 seats, he has submitted Ext.P2 application for replacement before the first respondent. This writ petition is field contending that though Ext.P2 application was submitted before the first respondent on 13.4.2011, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. 2. The respondents have been served. I heard the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has in Ext.P2 application itself stated that the incoming vehicle has a seating capacity of 33 seats and the outgoing vehicle 28 seats. He has also stated that increase in the number of seats will benefit the travelling public. Sub rule (3) of Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 stipulates that if the new vehicle proposed does not differ in material respects from the old, the application for replacement of the vehicle may be allowed. On the other hand, if WPC No.14211/2011 2 there is material difference between the two vehicles the application shall be treated as if it were for a fresh permit. The Note to sub rule (3) stipulates that vehicles which differ by not more than 25 per cent of the Gross Vehicle Weight or seating capacity, as the case may be, shall not be considered as materially different. 3. In the instant case, the difference in the seating capacity is only 5, which is less than 25 per cent of the capacity of the outgoing vehicle and therefore increase in the number of seats in the out going vehicle cannot be treated as a material difference for the purpose of rule 174 of the rules. Such being the situation, the petitioner is entitled to have his application considered and a decision taken thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps