IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32687 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ KEERTHI VAS, PAKKAYATHU VADAKKETHIL, MANKAMKUZHYP.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.32687 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was holding a regular permit for operating on the route Punalur - Mavelikkara with stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-02/ X 4746. Admittedly, the validity of the said permit expired as early as on 20.6.2010. Prior to its expiry the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal. That was taken up for consideration on 29.6.2010 and was adjourned. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with a temporary permit as per Ext.P3 and its validity was to expire on 20.10.2010. While the petitioner was operating on the strength of the temporary permit the vehicle met with an accident on 17.9.2010. Subsequently, the fitness certificate of the said vehicle was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice dated 1.10.2010. It is a notice under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 86 empowers the authority either to cancel or suspend the permit. However, it is evident from the proviso to Section 86(1)(f) that suspension or cancellation could be done only after affording an opportunity to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. In fact, it is in terms of the requirement under the said section that Ext.P5 has WP(C).No.32687/2010 2 been issued to the petitioner. The present grievance of the petitioner is that though the period of temporary permit had expired on 20.10.2010 and prior to its expiry he had submitted Ext.P7 application, it has not been taken for consideration. On account of the said failure on the part of the authorities he is not able to operate the stage carriage service, it is submitted. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to issue temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act on Ext.P7 application without taking into account Ext.P5 proceedings initiated under section 86 of the Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the fact that the application for renewal and the proceedings under section 86 are pending before the first respondent, the first respondent would consider Ext.P7 application and pass necessary orders in the next RTA meeting. This is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- It will be open to the first respondent to consider the application for renewal as also to take steps for finalisation of the WP(C).No.32687/2010 3 proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5 under section 86 of the Act. However, that shall not stand in the way of consideration of Ext.P7 application. If there is likelihood of causing further delay in the matter of finalisation of the proceedings initiated under section 86 of the Act and also for taking a decision on the application for renewal then the first respondent shall consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law, in the next RTA meeting or within a period of one month, whichever is earlier. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS