IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1628 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.DIVAKARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, VETTOM P.O., TIRUR. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. SHRI T.K.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.BIRIYAKUTTY, THIRUNNAVAYA KALATHIL HOUSE, P.O.MANGALAM, TIRUR. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.1628/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT NO.C8/45/98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. PHOTOCOPY OF TIMINGS OPERATED AND ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, VIDE ORDER NO.C8/14675/98 DTD. 16.6.1999 EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF AGENDA OF ITEM NO.28 REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P3(a) PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSED TIME BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P4. PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 23.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION – RELEVANT PAGES EXT.P5. PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION DATED 12.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(a) PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES WITH EFFECT FROM 19.1.2009 EXT.P5(b) PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES WITH EFFECT FROM 4.2.2009 EXT.P5(c) PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES WITH EFFECT FROM 14.12.2009 EXT.P5(d) PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES WITH EFFECT FROM 14.12.2009 EXT.P6. PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2009 / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1628 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Tirur-Vettamcheerppu on the strength of a regular permit which is valid till 12.7.2013. A portion of the route lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. It appears, the second respondent herein had applied for a regular permit on the same route. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram that met on 22.7.2009 considered the said application and resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings. A timing conference was scheduled to be held on 27.1.2010 as can be seen from Ext.P4 notice. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P5 objections contending inter alia that the vehicle offered by the second respondent, KL-11 P 2220, is not in his possession and after the current records were produced he sold away the vehicle. He contended that the second respondent is not ready to put the vehicle offered by him on the road and that he has no ready W.P(C).No.1628 of 2010 -:2:- vehicle available with him and therefore the timing conference is not required to be held. Reliance was placed on Ext.P5 (a), P5 (b), P5(c) and P5(d) in support of the contention that the second respondent had sold the bus bearing registration No. KL-11 P 2220 to Smt.Sarojam. This writ petition was filed on 15.1.2010 seeking a direction to the respondents not to conduct the timing conference in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11 P 2220 and not to issue a permit to the second respondent to operate a stage carriage on the route Tirur-Vettam. 2. The second respondent has in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.894 of 2011, wherein he has prayed to vacate the interim order passed by this Court, stated that pursuant to the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority he had produced the current records of the vehicle offered by him on 20.9.2009 before the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority and therefore as the second respondent has the right to replace the vehicle before the actual issue of the permit, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from Ext.P5 objection filed by the petitioner himself that the second W.P(C).No.1628 of 2010 -:3:- respondent had produced the current records relating to the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/P 2220. Ext.P5 objection is dated 12.1.2010. The only objection put forward by the petitioner in Ext.P5 was that after producing the current records the second respondent sold away the vehicle and therefore as he is not in a position to put the vehicle on the road, the timing conference is not required to be held. 4. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 28.1.2011 this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain whether the second respondent had produced the records relating to stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11-P 2220 or produced only the current records of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13 H 7189. When the writ petition came up for hearing today the learned Government Pleader submitted that the second respondent had produced the current records relating to the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11 P 2220 on 23.9.2009. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram granted the permit to the second respondent at its meeting held on 22.7.2009. Though a decision was taken to grant the permit on 22.7.2009 the proceedings were signed only on 31.8.2009 and a copy thereof was served on the second respondent on 2.9.2009. Under rule W.P(C).No.1628 of 2010 -:4:- 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules the grantee is required to produce the current records of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of communication of the order granting permit. In the instant case the second respondent had admittedly produced the current records of the vehicle No.KL-11 P 2220 on 23.9.2009. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the mere fact that he thereafter sold the vehicle and produced the current records of another vehicle is not a ground to deny him the permit granted on 22.7.2009. I therefore, find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since more than one year has passed after the permit was granted, the first respondent shall hold the timing conference with notice to the petitioner, the second respondent and other stage carriage operators who will be affected by the settlement of timings and settle the timings within one month from the date on which the second respondent produces a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.1628 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th February, 2011