IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20700 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SELMA RAJESH, AGED 33, W/O.RAJESH, RAMADY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. SRI.SHYAM SUDHEER, S/O.CHEMBAN, MARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 508. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 20700 OF 2010 J ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He had been issued with a regular permit in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No:KL-7/AM 2353 to conduct services on the route Munambam-Ernakulam High Court junction, which is valid up to 30/7/2012. The petitioner agreed to sell the said vehicle to the third respondent but the sale could not be completed because the conditions in the agreement were not complied with by the third respondent. Pursuant to the agreement the petitioner had given consent for the management of his vehicle by the third respondent and he was conducting the services on the basis of a substitute temporary permit in the place of the petitioner with his own vehicle. In the above circumstances, petitioner applied for the replacement of his vehicle by a later model one. While so, departmental action was taken against the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent for violation of Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was granted two months time for replacement of the vehicle. Thereupon the third WPC 20700/2010 2 respondent objected to the same and filed WP(C) 29448/2009 for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a thorough enquiry into the allegations raised by him. The third respondent also sought to interdict the respondents from considering the petitioner's application for replacement. 2. In the above circumstances the petitioner also applied for the grant of a temporary permit since the temporary permit issued to the third respondent was about to expire. He also submitted objections to the grant of further temporary permits to the third respondent. The petitioner complains that his application for the issue of temporary permit has not been considered till date. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader Shri. K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 3. It is evident from the above that there are a number of proceedings among the petitioner and the third respondent, which are pending. The petitioner as well as the third respondent have submitted applications for the issue of temporary permits on the very same route. The third respondent has sought for the issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(c) but the petitioner has sought for issue of the same under Section 87(1)(d). It appears that both the applications have not been considered by the authorities. WPC 20700/2010 3 Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that while considering the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent is also heard and his objections considered. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after issuing notice to and hearing both the petitioner and the third respondent. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 20700/2010 4