IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20162 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MISHAL V.K, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED VATTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VALIYAPARAMBA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REPRESENED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VATAKARA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20162 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had submitted an application for the grant of a regular permit on 26.3.2007. As per Ext.P1, the first respondent granted the permit only as an ordinary service though the petitioner's request was for the grant as a Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS). Therefore, the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT' for short). As per Ext.P2, the STAT set aside Ext.P1 and directed the first respondent to grant a fresh regular permit to the petitioner to operate as an LSOS. The petitioner requested for implementation of the direction in Ext.P2 and offered a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 11/J 8109 which is suitable for the conduct of the service as an LSOS. However, as per Ext.P3 proceedings, the first respondent has adjourned the consideration of his application stating that the vehicle offered by the petitioner is an earlier model vehicle. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 contending that the approach of the first respondent is unsustainable. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is wpc No.20162 of 2010 2 only after a permit is granted that the vehicle is not permitted to be replaced by an older model vehicle. Since as per Ext.P2, a fresh grant has been made, the petitioner was entitled to offer a suitable vehicle and the first respondent had no authority to reject the said vehicle on the ground that it was older than the earlier vehicle that he had offered. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in WPC No.27503 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006. After considering a similar situation, the issue has been concluded by K.Balakrishnan Nair, J. in paragraph - 3 of the judgment in the following words: “The permit is granted to the applicant. Of course, for operating the same, a suitable vehicle has to be produced at the time of issuance of the permit. Even if the petitioner did not offer any vehicle, he was entitled to get the permit. The respondent does not have a case that the vehicle is not road worthy or cannot be allowed to operate for some other reason. Therefore, the respondent is liable to issue the permit for the vehicle produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to issue the permit granted as per Ext.P2, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 3. As rightly found above, since the petitioner is entitled to grant of the permit even without production of wpc No.20162 of 2010 3 any vehicle, he is free to produce a suitable vehicle for the conduct of his service after the grant. In the instant case also what the petitioner has done is to offer a vehicle for conducting his services, pursuant to the grant in Ext.P2. It is up to the first respondent to consider the suitability of the vehicle and to issue the permit on a consideration of his application. However, as per Ext.P3, the petitioner's permit has not been granted for a reason that is not sustainable in law. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the dictum of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment as well as the judgment in WPC No.27503 of 2006 of this Court and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/