IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25049 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ UMMER K.H., KURUKKAPEEDIKA HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 25049 OF 2010 E ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner had purchased a vehicle bearing registration number KL-8 D 5545 from the registered owner thereof, Mr.P.V.Viswanathan, as per agreement dated 1.4.2002. The vehicle was having a regular permit on the route Thrissur – Idianchira – Pulikkakkadavu. After purchase of the vehicle, the petitioner submitted an application for transfer before the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. At that point of time, the permit holder disputed his signature in the agreement as well as in the joint application for transfer and renewal application. Thereupon, the authorities declined to pass any orders on the joint application. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing WP(C) 31235/2009. The said writ petition has been disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 19/5/2010. The judgment makes reference to the statements made by the additional third respondent therein who was the registered owner of the vehicle to the effect that he had no objection in granting the reliefs sought for in the said writ petition to the petitioner for the reason that the disputes between him and the petitioner had been amicably settled. According to him there WPC 25049/2010 2 were some financial dealings between himself and the petitioner and that was the reason why he had denied the signature put by him on the renewal application as well as on the joint application submitted by them. Therefore, he has also stated that he had no objection to allow the renewal application of the stage carriage vehicle KL-8 D 5545 and the joint application for transfer of the vehicle. On the basis of the above statements, the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur has directed in Ext.P1 to consider the joint application submitted by the petitioner and the registered owner of the vehicle in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 2. According to the petitioner, prior to the date of Ext.P1, the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner was not the permit holder of the vehicle. The decision of the first respondent was challenged by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No: 254/2009. As per judgment dated 10/8/2009, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed finding that there was absolutely no evidence available to show that the permit in favour of the third respondent therein had been transferred to the petitioner who was the WPC 25049/2010 3 appellant. The said judgment is Ext.P3. The petitioner did not pursue Ext.P3 thereafter by challenging the same before any other authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P1 judgment and a direction to the second respondent to reconsider and allow the application for renewal of the permit. 3. Ext.P3 judgment is dated 10/8/2009. True, the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected relying on the objections of the original permit holder. Since the permit had not been transferred to the name of the petitioner, the application for renewal was rejected. The said order of rejection was the subject matter of challenge before the first respondent in the appeal, MVAA 254/2009. As per Ext.P3, the order of the second respondent has been confirmed. However, the petitioner did not challenge Ext.P3 thereafter. Consequently Ext.P3 has become final, by lapse of time. It is trite that the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to reopen matters that have become final by lapse of time. Absolutely no reason has been stated for the delay in challenging Ext.P3. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are any grounds to interfere with Ext.P3 and to grant the reliefs that are sought for in WPC 25049/2010 4 this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to file a fresh application for renewal of permit, if it is permissible to condone the delay. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 25049/2010 5