IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17096 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- T.P.SUBAIR,THOTTAMPALLATH HOSUE, ARAFA MANZIL, MELAPPATTAMBI,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17096/2010 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DTD. 4/08/2008. P2: COPY OF THE CHALLAN DTD. 4/08/2008. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/03/2009 IN MVAA NO.511/08. P4: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DTD. 30/07/2009. P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 22/05/2008. P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 12/08/2008. P7: COPY OF TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DTD. 14/06/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17096 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He was conducting services on the route Kundoorkkara – Poovakkode via Harijan colony, U.P.School, Pattambi, Ongallur, Pokkupadi, Harijan colony, Kalladipetta, L.P.School, Maruthoor U.P.School and Harijan Colony with stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-9/G 9563. According to the petitioner his vehicle had become old and was giving frequent troubles. Therefore he submitted Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle with a later model vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8/T 371. However, the replacement application was kept pending, without any orders being passed thereon. 2. During the pendency of the replacement application, the first respondent rejected the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner. The application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's old vehicle had been re-possessed by its financier and the registration thereof had been transferred to the name of the financier on 17-9-2009 itself. WPC 17096/2010 2 3. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application before the State Transport Appellate Authority. On a consideration of the contentions of the petitioner, as per Ext.P3 judgment, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, allowed the appeal of the petitioner and issued the following directions:- “In the result, this appeal is allowed. Setting aside the impugned order the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the appellant's application for renewal of permit with respect to the new vehicle offered by him to operate the service.” 4. The above judgment was not challenged by the first respondent before any higher authority or forum. Therefore, the said judgment has become final and binding inter parties. However, the direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was not implemented by the first respondent. 5. In the above circumstances the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions for the implementation of Ext.P3. A direction for considering the replacement application of the petitioner is also sought for. On 10-6-2010, an interim direction has been issued by this Court to the first respondent to issue temporary permits till renewal of permit is granted. The petitioner complains that the said order has also not been complied with. Instead I.A. 8551 /2010 was filed by the first respondent WPC 17096/2010 3 seeking to vacate the interim order, which is pending. The petitioner has filed counter affidavit to the said petition. 6. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit to this writ petition pointing out that as per Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 immediately on change of ownership of the vehicle in respect of which a permit is granted, the permit gets automatically cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner's permit had got cancelled by the operation of the said provision consequent upon transfer of registration of his vehicle to the name of the financier. The above vital aspect has not been taken note of or adverted to by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while passing Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore, it is pointed out that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority in refusing to renew the permit of the petitioner is perfectly legal and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader who appears for the respondents. I have also given anxious consideration to the contentions urged by either parties. 8. It is to be noted that the petitioner had challenged the rejection of his application for renewal of permit before the State WPC 17096/2010 4 Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA 511/2008. As per Ext.P3 judgment dated 28-3-2009 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeal and issued the direction already extracted above. The judgment of the State Transport Appellate Authority has become final and binding inter parties for the reason that the same was not the subject matter of challenge in any proceedings before any higher authority thereafter. In view of the above binding decision, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the rejection of the petitioner's application for renewal of permit was proper and justified. It was for the said reason that an interim order was issued as prayed for by this Court on 10-6-2010. However, it is pointed out that the said order has also not been complied with by the respondents so far. Since the respondents were parties to Ext.P3, they are bound by the directions in Ext.P3 and it is not open to them to turn around and contend that the directions in the said judgment cannot bind them. Therefore, it follows that the rejection of the petitioner's application for renewal of permit is absolutely without any justification and unsustainable. The petitioner is also entitled to have his application for replacement of vehicle considered, in accordance with law. WPC 17096/2010 5 9. The learned Govt. Pleader points out that Ext.P6 order by which the petitioner's regular permit was cancelled was not the subject matter of challenge before the State Transport Appellate Authority. Therefore, even if Ext.P3 is held to be binding on the respondents, that would not entitle the petitioner to claim renewal for the reason that he has not challenged the cancellation of his permit as per Ext.P6. The above contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that the respondents had not advanced any such contention before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam though a separate order as evidenced by Ext.P6 had been passed on 12-8-2008 formally cancelling the permit of the petitioner. It was long thereafter that Ext.P3 judgment was passed on 28-3-2009. Since Ext.P6 had not been brought to the notice of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the fact that such an order had been passed, cannot have any effect on the validity of Ext.P3. Further, as already noticed above, Ext.P3 has become final and binding inter parties. Therefore, the above contention is also liable to be rejected. 10. In the result this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- a) The respondents shall grant renewal of permit for the WPC 17096/2010 6 stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8/T 371 in compliance with the direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam contained in Ext.P3 judgment, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from today. b) The petitioner shall be entitled to the issue of temporary permit/permits during the interregnum period until his regular permit is formally renewed in accordance with the above direction. c) The application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed thereon by the authorities, expeditiously. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17096/2010 7