IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25770 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIHARASUTHAN, S/O. PARTHASARATHY, MULLAMPATHIL HOUSE, KADAVATH, PARALI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 25770/09. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 13-6-2008 IN MVARP NO. 102/2008. EXT.P2 TEMPORARY PERMIT. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 25949/08. EXT.P4 LEASE AGREEMENT DT. 5-5-2009. EXT.P5 APPLICATION DT. 5-5-2009. EXT.P6 PROCEEDINGS OF RTA DT. 27-5-2008. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT IN M.V.AA NO. 291/09. EXT.P8 CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION. EXT.P9 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 20056/09. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P11 I.A DT. 27-7-2009. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25770 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the holder of a regular permit, which was valid till 23-3-2006. The application for renewal was not considered on the ground that the concurrence from the sister authorities is yet to be obtained in view of the fact that it was an inter-district route. However, in the meanwhile, the service was continued on the strength of temporary permits. The service is a fast-passenger service. Since the vehicle plied by the petitioner completed 5 years and was therefore not fit for a fast passenger service, the temporary permit was not renewed. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 25949/2008. This Court directed to consider the application for temporary permit filed by the petitioner as and when the petitioner offers a vehicle satisfying the requirements of Rule 260-A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 2. The 2nd petitioner is a registered owner of a 2000 model vehicle. The 1st petitioner entered into Ext. P4 lease agreement with the 2nd petitioner for the said vehicle. On the strength of Ext. P4 lease agreement, the petitioner filed an application for temporary permit. The same was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was not legally owned by the 1st petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who directed grant of temporary permit, if the first petitioner is in possession of the vehicle under a valid agreement of lease. The respondent still took the stand that unless the lease agreement is endorsed in the certificate of registration, permit would not be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 20056/2009. This Court, by Ext. P9 judgment, directed as follows: “The 1st petitioner may cause the production of an affidavit by the 2nd respondent affirming the lease of the vehicle and if it is so produced, 2nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter of re- W.P.C. No. 25770/09 -: 2 :- issuance of the temporary permit. . . . . .” Pursuant to that order, the petitioner produced Ext. P10 affidavit, which reads thus: “I, Nachimuthu, residing at MRC Illom, Near Vinayagar Kovil, Velanthavalam, Palakkad solemnly affirm and state as follows: I am the registered owner of stage carriage bus bearing Registration No. KL-09/X 1220. The said vehicle manufactured in the year 2009. I handed over the possession in all means of the vehicle Registration No. KL-09/X 1220 to Mr. Hariharasudhan, s/o. Parthasarathy, Mullampathil House, Kadavath, Parali, Palakkad as per a lease agreement executed between me and the said Harihara Sudan on 05/05/2009. I have no objection for applying Temporary Permit of the vehicle Registration No. KL-09/X 1220 by Mr. Hariharasudhan, s/o. Parthasaradhy, Mullampathil Housoe, Kadavath, Parali, Palakkad. This affidavit is to produce before RTA, Palakkad.” Despite the same, by Ext. P12 order, the respondent rejected the application for temporary permit by the following order: “Heard. The applicant failed to produce a valid agreement of lease/hypothecation as directed. On the other hand, already the vehicle is found under HP agreement with M/s. Dhaireyalazmi Auto Financiers, Karur as endorsed in the registration certificate of s/c KL 09 X 1220. There is no valid regular permit or Temporary permit (u/s 87(1)d of the M.V. Act, 1988), also there is no application for replacement of vehicle. Hence, the application for temporary permit in respect of stage carriage KL 09 X 1220 is rejected.” The petitioner submits that Ext. P12 order is in clear violation of the orders of the STAT and this Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not in possession of the vehicle in question and that vehicle is being plied somewhere else. 4. On 4-11-2009, I passed the following order, which is self- W.P.C. No. 25770/09 -: 3 :- explanatory: “The learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to some enquiry conducted after the filing of the writ petition, which is not even referred to in the counter affidavit, it has been reported that the vehicle in question is not in the possession of the petitioners. But the learned Government Pleader could not explain how Ext. P12 happened to be passed, which is against the directions in the judgment of this Court in Ext. P9. Prima facie, I am satisfied that Ext. P12 order borders on contempt insofar as it has been passed against the directions therein. When being apprised of this fact, the learned Government Pleader seeks time to file additional affidavit. The additional affidavit so filed shall explain how Ext. P12 could have been passed at a time when the RTA did not have benefit of the so called report, now relied upon by the respondent.” Pursuant thereto, the respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit which reads thus: “2. It is respectfully submitted that S/C KL 13/J 4181 was operating on the inter district route Wayalar-Kozhikkode as LSEP with the strength of a regular permit valid up to 23.06.2006. Permit renewal application in respect of the vehicle is still pending. Above stage carriage was operated with temporary permit u/s 87(1) d of M V Act up to 27.08.08. Further application in respect of the above for temporary permit u/s 87(1) d was rejected as per section 260 A of KMV Rules and proceedings was issued vide order No. C3/65597/2008 on 21.08.2008, since the vehicle was attained 5 years of age set for LSFP service. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 25949/08 before the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court in its judgment dated 02.09.2008 directed the RTA, Palakkad to get the concurrence from sister RTA and pass orders on the renewal application within 10 weeks from the date of production of judgment. 3. It is submitted that RTA, Malappuram granted concurrence to S/C KL 13/J 4181 as per decision of RTA dated 25.09.06 as item No. 126(I)(8) to comply the time bound direction of Hon'ble High court in passing order of renewal application pending Secretary, RTA, Palakkad has reminded RTA, Kozhikkode. The S/C KL 13/J 4181 is now under Form 'G' w.e.f. 01.09.2008 to 31.12.2009.” W.P.C. No. 25770/09 -: 4 :- 5. Going by the counter affidavits filed, it is clear that on the date of passing Ext. P12, the situation was not as stated in the counter affidavits. That being so, Ext. P12 is not only unsustainable but also prima facie amounts to non-compliance with the judgment of this Court . For that reason Ext. P12 is quashed. The respondent is directed to strictly comply with Ext. P9 judgment within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/