IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4159 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIYAS, THRUTHIKKAPALLY, PANAVALLY PO, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had applied for a regular permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Edakochi-Cherthala Via Aroor Temple, Arookutty, Perumbalam, Poochackal, Pallichantha, Ottappunna, Thavanakkadav and Chenganda. In his application for regular permit, the petitioner had offered to operate the service with the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 08 AF 2925. The Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha that met on 12.11.2010 resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings in respect of the aforesaid stage carriage. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority communicated the said decision to the petitioner as per endorsement dated 23.12.2010 and directed the petitioner to produce the current records of the vehicle for which the permit was granted within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner states that he received a copy of the said order on 4.11.2011. The petitioner had in the mean while purchased the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-58-8179. The petitioner submits that though he had produced the current records of the said vehicle before the respondent and the respondent was satisfied that the records are in order, he declined to W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2011 2 grant the permit stating that the permit can be issued only for the stage carriage referred to in Ext.P1 order. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to issue the permit granted as per Ext.P1 for the stage carriage described in Ext.P2 certificate of registration, viz., KL-58-8179. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission-hearing on 16.2.2011, the learned Government Pleader was directed to ascertain and submit whether the current records of the vehicle described in Ext.P2 certificate of registration were produced by the petitioner before the respondent. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted on instructions that the current records of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-58-8179 were produced before the respondent on 18.1.2011. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on both sides. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court including the decision in Vinod Thomas v. RTA, Kottayam (1999 (2) KLJ 1092) that even if the applicant had given the details of the vehicle which he intends to put on the road in the application for permit, he can produce another vehicle in the place of the vehicle offered by him before the grant of permit. W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2011 3 Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent cannot be sustained. Then, the only question is whether the petitioner has complied with sub-rule (1) of rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 159(1) states that no permit shall be issued before the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. Sub- rule (2) of rule 159 stipulates that 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 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. It is also stipulated that if the applicant fails to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application. 4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had produced the current records of another vehicle before the respondent on 18.1.2011, well within the period of four months W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2011 4 prescribed in sub-rule (2) of section 159 of the rules. In such circumstances, as the applicant for the grant of a regular permit can seek a permit in respect of a vehicle other than the vehicle offered by him in the application, I am of the opinion that the respondent should issue a permit in implementation of Ext.P1 order subject to settlement of timings. Apart from the fact that a vehicle other than the vehicle mentioned in the application was produced, no other reason has been stated to deny the permit. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to settle the timings and issue a regular permit to the petitioner to operate the stage carriage described in Ext.P2 certificate of registration expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and other stage carriage operators who would be affected by the settlement of timings, before finalising the time schedule in respect of the stage carriage of the petitioner. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.