IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4580 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.SCARIA, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURISMOODU, CHENGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT IDUKKI. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GP K S MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.4580 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a Stage Carriage No.KL-3/A 1744 for which permit was issued on the route Mathamba - Meloram, valid till 21.8.2008. The petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of the same, which is pending. Since the vehicle was already more than 15 years old, the same was not fit for operations and therefore the petitioner purchased another Stage Carriage bearing No.KL-5/F 7920. Thereafter, he submitted an application for replacement of the vehicle. As per Ext.P3, the replacement has been allowed on 4.9.2008. However, the replacement has not been endorsed. According to the petitioner, the application for renewal has not been placed before the RTO, Idukki, till date. Since his application for renewal of regular permit is pending, he has submitted an application for the issue of a temporary permit. However, the same has been rejected by Ext.P5 order. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the application Wpc 4580/2010 2 of the petitioner can be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law, without further delay. 3. I notice that the permit of the petitioner was valid from 22.8.2003 to 21.8.2008. Ext.P2 application shows that he had submitted the same for renewal of his permit on 10.6.2008 before the expiry of the regular permit. Therefore, his application for renewal was within time. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner's request for replacement of his vehicle has been granted, but the same has not been endorsed. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner's application for regular permit is not pending. Therefore, the proceedings of the RTA, rejecting his application for temporary permit is not in order. In view of the above, Ext.P6 is set aside. 4. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to take necessary action for endorsing the replacement of vehicle granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 and to place the application for renewal of regular permit of the petitioner before the second respondent, on an early date, in the next meeting of the RTA. There shall also be a direction to the first respondent to consider the application of the Wpc 4580/2010 3 petitioner for issue of temporary permit in respect of his new vehicle and to pass orders thereon, which shall be passed expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk