IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19155 of 2011(T) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- E.REZEEM, EDATHIL HOUSE, FLORICAN HILL ROAD, KARAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, PIN - 673 101. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 19155 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 18/6/2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 27/6/2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/6/2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT DATED 8/7/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19155 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Nadapuram-Kuttiadi-Perambra-Kozhikode on the strength of a regular permit. The said permit was valid till 18.6.2011. The petitioner applied for renewal of the permit by submitting an application dated 3.6.2011. The petitioner was operating the service using the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/2385 having a seating capacity of 48 passengers. While the application for renewal of the permit was pending, he submitted Ext.P2 application dated 27.6.2011 for replacement of the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/AF 3339 having the same seating capacity. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 30.6.2011 before the Regional Transport Officer, Vatakara requesting him to issue a permit in respect of the new vehicle referred to in Ext.P2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara thereafter renewed the permit for a period of five years from 18.6.2011 as per Ext.P4 proceedings dated 8.7.2011. He also directed the petitioner to produce the current records of the vehicle within 30 days. The petitioner states that W.P.(C) No.19155 of 2011 2 though thereafter he had produced the current records of the later model vehicle (KL-11/AF 3339) and requested the respondent to issue the permit, the respondent has taken the stand that petitioner has to produce the current records of the old vehicle (KL-18/2385) and thereafter apply for replacement. Hence the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to allow Ext.P2 application for replacement and endorse the renewal of the permit by Ext.P4 proceedings, after allowing the application for replacement. 2. The respondent has been served and has entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Abdul Salam, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no restriction what so ever in the Motor Vehicles Act on a stage carriage operator replacing the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle at the time of renewal, and that it is not necessary that the operator should first get the permit renewed and thereafter apply for replacement. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the unreported decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No.9012 of 2007 in support of the said contention. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing W.P.(C) No.19155 of 2011 3 for the respondent submitted on instructions that along with the application for renewal of the permit, a certificate of fitness in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/2385, tax receipt evidencing payment of tax upto 30.6.2010 in respect of that vehicle and a no objection certificate from the financier had to be produced. He submitted that the petitioner has not produced the fitness certificate in respect of the stage carriage KL-18/2385 or the tax receipt for the said period and therefore, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara has not considered the application for replacement. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that as the renewal was granted for the existing stage carriage, the renewal cannot be endorsed with reference to any other vehicle. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner has in Ext.P3 application stated that the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL- 18/2385 is garaged since 1.11.2010. He has also stated that the certificate of fitness of that vehicle has expired and the vehicle which was operating till 1.11.2010 is a 9 year old vehicle. It is also stated that to repair the vehicle and to put it on road, the petitioner will have to incur heavy expenditure and therefore he may be permitted to replace the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle. W.P.(C) No.19155 of 2011 4 5. In W.P.(C) No.9012 of 2007, a learned Judge of this Court considered an identical issue and held that for the purpose of obtaining renewal of the permit, the operator need not retain the old vehicle and thereafter replace it. The operator in that case was also similarly placed as the petitioner herein except for the fact that he was operating the service even while the application for renewal was pending on the basis of a temporary permit. I am in respectful agreement with the opinion of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9012 of 2007. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to have the renewal endorsed on the original of Ext.P1 after replacing the vehicle mentioned in that permit by a later model vehicle. The respondent does not deny the petitioner's statement that he has produced the current records of the later model vehicle. The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner has to produce the records of the outgoing vehicle. Even if the respondent were to take the stand that the petitioner has not produced the current records of the incoming vehicle, as Ext.P4 proceedings granting the renewal was issued only on 8.7.2011, the petitioner need produce the current records only by 7.8.2011. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner producing the current W.P.(C) No.19155 of 2011 5 records of the later model vehicle (KL-11/AF 3339) along with a copy of this judgment, the respondent shall accept the same and endorse the renewal of the permit on the original of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, after verifying the current records, within one week from the date of production of the records. Needless to say, this will not absolve the petitioner of the liability to pay motor vehicles tax, if any, in respect of the outgoing vehicle. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.