IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18107 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- DEEPTHY.M.P., PRABALA NIVAS, KIZHUVALAM.P.O., VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.T 412, KARUKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ABDUL SALAM BY ADV. SRI. K.V. GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18107 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PERMIT NO. C13/20/7/95 DATED 30/06/1995. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT 24.03.2000. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 16/10/2001. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT 18.05.2006. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 18/04/2008. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A. NO. 345/2008 DATED 03/04/2009. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 11/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18107 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 2/P 3668 which she claims she is presently operating in Thiruvananthapuram city on the strength of a temporary permit issued in the vacancy of another stage carriage. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent and Ext.P7 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram issued pursuant to the said judgment, whereby the stage carriage permit held by the third respondent was renewed for a period of five years from 29.6.2005. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The third respondent, the Secretary of the Taxi Drivers Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T.412, was operating a stage carrige service in Thiruvananthapuram city on the strength of a regular permit. The permit was granted in the name of the Secretary of the society and was valid from 30.6.1995 to 29.6.2000. The said permit was later renewed for a period of five years from 30.6.2000 to 29.6.2005. The petitioner has stated that the third respondent did not W.P.(C) No.18107 of 2011 2 get the renewal evidenced by Ext.P3 endorsed on the original of the permit after producing the current records of the vehicle within the time stipulated in rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore the grant/renewal lapsed by efflux of time. It is stated that notwithstanding that fact, the third respondent submitted an application dated 18.5.2006 for renewal of the stage carriage permit for a period of five years from 29.6.2005 to 28.6.2011 along with an application to condone the delay in applying for renewal. The said applications were rejected by Ext.P5 proceedings dated 18.4.2008 of the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed an appeal, M.V.A.A.No.345 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 3.4.2009, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the renewal of the regular permit for a period of five years from 29.6.2005. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 11.6.2009, the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram renewed the permit. 3. In the meanwhile, after Ext.P6 judgment was delivered but before Ext.P7 proceedings were issued, another stage carriage operator filed W.P.(C) No.14923 of 2009 in this Court challenging the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA.No.345 of 2008 contending that the appeal is bad for non-joinder of necessary W.P.(C) No.18107 of 2011 3 parties and it ought to have been dismissed on that short ground. Other contentions were also raised. In that writ petition, an interim order of stay was passed staying the renewal of the regular permit pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment. That writ petition was later dismissed for default by judgment delivered on 17.6.2011 in view of the fact that there was no representation when the case was called on for hearing and in view of the letter dated 13.1.2011 sent by the petitioner to the Registrar of this Court to the effect that he is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. 4. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 4.7.2011 challenging Exts.P6 and P7 and seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue a fresh notification inviting applications for regular permit in the vacancy of the regular permit issued in respect of the stage carriage initially operated by the third respondent. The main contention in this writ petition is that the third respondent society which was the applicant and the permit holder is defunct, its general body meeting has not been held for the past several years, that it has no elected committee and the Secretary is misusing his position to help other private operators. Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was delivered on 3.4.2009. More than two years have passed thereafter. The petitioner has no case that he was unaware of Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. W.P.(C) No.18107 of 2011 4 The writ petition is totally silent as regards the point of time at which the petitioner came to know of Ext.P6. There is no explanation what so ever for the long delay in filing the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order. Therefore, on that short ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Apart from stating that the Secretary has acted fraudlently, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material in support of the said contention. It is not in dispute that the third respondent society did not get the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment and did not operate the service. Therefore, the issue raised in the instant writ petition has become purely academic. A reading of Ext.P5 order indicates that the petitioner was not one among the persons who had objected to the renewal of the permit in favour of the third respondent. He had also not applied for a temporary permit though many others had applied. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.