IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29868 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHAR A.A., AINIKKAL HOUSE,MARUTHAKKARA P.O.,TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,TRISSUR. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 29868/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1. P3. COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OF STAT DTD.28.7.08. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1. P6. COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE. P7. COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO.868/09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29868 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding a regular permit. The vehicle covered by the permit is an old one. The petitioner filed application for replacement of the vehicle. Pending consideration of the same, the petitioner applied for a temporary permit, which was rejected. The petitioner approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who, by Ext.P4 judgment, allowed the appeal and directed the Secretary, RTA, to issue temporary permit for four months or till a regular permit is granted on the route, whichever occurs first. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner's application for temporary permit has not been allowed yet and his application for replacement of the vehicle also remains undisposed of. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant replacement of the vehicle covered by Exhibit P1 permit with KL-5- G-2372 by considering Exhibit P7 application; ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Exhibit P4 Judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal forthwith and to grant 4 months temporary permit to petitioner's vehicle KL-5-G-2372:” 2. In view of Ext.P4 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the respondents have no option but to issue W.P.C.29868/09 2 temporary permit to the petitioner in so far as Ext.P4 judgment has not been challenged. Further, when an application for replacement is filed, the respondents have a duty to consider and pass orders on the same either way. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that Ext.P4 judgment is complied with and the petitioner's application for replacement of the vehicle is considered and orders passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge