IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3148 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.K.DEVARAJAN PILLAI,THAZHIKAZHIKOM, KURUMUNDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY MR.G.PRABHAKARAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,KSRTC, ATTINGAL (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3148 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 judgment of the STAT in MVAA No.368/08. 2. Facts show that the petitioner had a regular permit valid till 27/12/2000. After expiry of the permit, he made an application for a fresh permit on 19/03/2001, that was rejected on 27/09/2003. Against that order, he filed an appeal as MVAA No.974/2003, that was also dismissed by judgment dated 10/09/2004. 3. Despite the rejection of his permit application and in spite of the dismissal of the appeal by the judgment referred to above, suppressing the same, the petitioner was availing of and was operating on temporary permits issued under Section 87 (1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioner made a fresh application on 16/07/2005, and that was rejected on 18/04/2008 on the ground of scheme violation, which was also the subject matter of the appeal, which resulted in Ext.P6 order. The Tribunal WP(C) No.3148/2009 -2- held that renewal was not permissible for the reason that though the permit expired on 27/12/2000, the application, which was the subject matter of the appeal, was made only on 16/07/2005. It was stated that once the permit is expired, it is not possible to grant renewal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, relying on Section 81(3) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that even after the expiry of the permit, it is permissible to apply for its renewal. However, a reading of Section 81(3) shows that it is possible to do so only if the applicant satisfies the authority that he was prevented by good and sufficient causes from making the application within the time specified under Section 81(1) of the Act. In this case, neither the order of rejection, nor Ext.P2 appeal memorandum shows that the petitioner had put up a case by sufficient pleadings explaining the delay to bring his case within Section 81(3) of the Act. If that be so, the conclusion arrived in Ext.P6 deserves to be upheld, and I do so. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg