IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4693 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SATHEESH PARGADE, S/O. SANTHARAM DARGADE, KOPPERTHOOTTA HOUSE, KANGANADI, MANGALORE. 2. K. GOPAL SHETTY, S/O. BHASKAR SHETTY, VINAYA DURGA NIVAS, THALAPPADI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 4. THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.4693 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P7 and P8, check reports issued by the 4th respondent. 2. By Ext.P7 ad Ext.P8 petitioners have been directed to stop service of their vehicle, and it is ordered that they can conduct service only after obtaining consent from STA/RTO, Kasaragod. The reason appears to be that by Ext.P1, renewal was granted by the Karnataka STAT and among the conditions that are incorporated in Ext.P1, one of the conditions is that the renewal is subject to the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos.840/09 and 851/07. Ext.P2 is the counter signature granted by the Kerala STA which also is subject to the conditions already attached, which means that the counter signature granted is subject to the conditions WP(c).No.4693/09 /2/ incorporated in Ext.P1. While Exts.P1 ad P2 are in respect of the first petitioner and similar proceedings Exts.P3 to P6 are in respect of the 2nd petitioner. 3. Even according to the counsel for the petitioners, the Karnataka High court has dismissed the writ appeals. Since renewal of permit was subject to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the writ appeals mentioned above, on the dismissal of the writ appeals, in my view, the renewal itself will automatically lapse. If that be so, the counter signature which also is subject to the conditions which are incorporated in the renewal itself also should automatically lapse. It was in view of this development that the check reports were issued. 4. I see anything erroneous in Exts.P7 and P8. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4693/09 /2/