IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13983 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.S.VARKEY, CHERIYANITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHELAKOMB.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13983/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5 C 4701, a 1995 model vehicle, has been operating the said vehicle on the route Kurichi - Erattayar on a regular permit which was valid till 16.9.2008. By Ext.P2 application, he sought for a renewal of the regular permit and in the meanwhile, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for a temporary permit pending consideration of renewal of the regular permit. In the meanwhile, since the existing vehicle was an old model, he sought for replacement of the same with another 2003 model vehicle. Petitioner is now operating the said vehicle on the basis of a temporary permit on the same route which is issued in the name of the registered owner. Petitioner complains that his application for renewal of regular permit has not been considered on the ground that the registered owner of the vehicle and W.P.(C).13983/2009 2 the permit holder are not the same. Similar matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Raveendran v. RTA, Kannur (1995 (1) KLJ 96), and the principle was applied in relation to another vehicle operated by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P7. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. There is no justification in not taking a decision on the application for renewal of the regular permit and if another later model vehicle is made available and it is actually operating with the aid of the temporary permit on the current route, same should be considered by the respondent. 3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of the permit and if the petitioner produces the vehicle covered by Ext.P5 lease agreement, orders shall be passed thereon W.P.(C).13983/2009 3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without insisting on the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle. In the meanwhile, respondent shall also pass orders on the application for temporary permit as also the application for replacement of the existing vehicle with the vehicle covered by Ext.P5 lease agreement, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs