IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 6996 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJEESH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, NAYARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARANCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.R. DEEA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6996/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to issue the temporary/special permits to the stage carriage operators enabling them to avoid their bounden duty of operating in the specified routes and to operate like a contract carriage. A declaration that Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not visualize the granting of special permit to the stage carriage operators to function like a contract carriage within the jurisdictional area of the Regional Transport Authority by whom it is issued, is also sought for. 2. The main ground on which the petitioner is raising his contention is that, it is without ensuring the availability of a substitute vehicle, that special permits are issued to WP(c).No.6996/2008 2 contract carriages and that this was not permissible, in view of the judgment of this court in Vijayan Pillai V. RTO, Trissur(2003(1)KLT 184). 3. A statement has been filed by the first respondent. In that statement, it is stated that, it is strictly in compliance with the provisions contained in Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in compliance with the decision of the State Transport Authority, dated 1.2.2005 that special permits are issued to the stage carriages for a maximum period of 2 days and without insisting on substitute arrangements provided that one day is a holiday. It is also stated that, in a case where both the days covered by special permits are working days, the granting authority shall ensure that the traveling public will not be put to hardship by the withdrawal of the route bus and that if it is satisfied that the withdrawal will put the traveling public to hardship, such special permits shall be granted only after making substitute arrangements. WP(c).No.6996/2008 3 4. From the above, it is evident that the respondents are ensuring that the inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the traveling public on account of the withdrawal of the vehicle is dully taken care of. If that be so, there is no reason why the relief sought for int his writ petition as such should be granted. Be that as it may be, it is directed that, in the event of the petitioner has any specific compliant in this regard, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent with appropriate representation and in which case, he shall take appropriate action. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.6996/2008 4