IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5130 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SELMA RAJESH, AGED 33, W/O.RAJESH, RAMADY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN- 682 509. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.M. MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 5130 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SRI.K.I. NIVIN WITH ENDORSEMENT REGARDING TRANSFER OF THE PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 20700/2010 DATED 02/07/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 28/10/2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 04/12/2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 58/2011 DATED 04/01/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 11/01/2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 29/01/2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM P.TEM. A DATED 28/01/2011. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5130 OF 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Munambam -Ernakulam – High Court Junction on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. Though Ext.P1 permit is valid till 30.7.2012, the petitioner could not operate the stage carriage for some time as she had taken steps to replace the vehicle (KL- 7/AN.2353) with another vehicle. Disputes have arisen between the petitioner and Sri.Shyam Sudheer who had agreed to buy the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-7/AN.2353 and the latter has filed W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009 in this Court for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to conduct a thorough enquiry into the allegations raised by him. As a result of the stalemate, the petitioner who was not in a position to operate the service on the strength of the regular permit applied for a temporary permit to operate a stage carriage service in that vacancy. She thereafter filed W.P(C) No.20700 of 2010 in this Court for a direction to the respondent to consider her application for temporary permit. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 2.7.2010, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for temporary W.P.(C) No.5130 of 2011 2 permit with notice to the intending purchaser of the outgoing vehicle. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam thereafter granted Ext.P3 temporary permit dated 28.10.2010 overruling the contention of the intending purchaser and allowing the petitioner's application for 20 days temporary permit to operate the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-06-D-5267 in the place of the outgoing vehicle (KL-7/AN.2353). The application submitted by the intending purchaser for a similar permit was rejected. The said order has attained finality. In view of Ext.P3 order, the Regional Transport Authority issued Ext.P4 permit to the petitioner and the said permit was valid during the period from 28.10.2010 to 16.11.2010. Thereafter, Ext.P5 temporary permit was issued in renewal thereof covering the period from 17.11.2010 to 6.12.2010. Though the petitioner applied for renewal of the said temporary permit for a further period of 20 days as per the application dated 3.12.2010, orders were not passed thereon, as a result of which the petitioner was forced to stop the operation of the stage carriage. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.58 of 2011 in this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 4.1.2011, after hearing the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, this Court W.P.(C) No.5130 of 2011 3 directed the second respondent to pass orders on the application for temporary permit and to issue a temporary permit of 20 days duration to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of that judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P7 temporary permit was issued to the petitioner covering the period from 11.1.2011 to 30.1.2011. Later, Ext.P8 temporary permit was issued covering the period from 31.1.2011 to 19.2.2011. This writ petition is filed contending that though even before the expiry of Ext.P8 permit, Ext.P9 application dated 28.1.2011 was submitted for a temporary permit of 4 months duration, orders were not passed thereon, as a result of which on the expiry of Ext.P8 permit, the petitioner had to stop the service. This writ petition was filed in the mean while on 17.2.2011 seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 application for temporary permit and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission-hearing on 18.2.2011, while admitting the writ petition, this Court passed the following order:- “Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in 10 days to the respondents. There will be an interim order directing W.P.(C) No.5130 of 2011 4 the second respondent to issue a temporary permit of 20 days duration in continuation of Ext.P8 temporary permit by passing appropriate orders on Ext.P9 application. Orders on Ext.P9 shall be passed on 19.2.2011 in order to enable the petitioner to continue to operate the service without break. Post along with W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009 after service of notice.” 3. As directed by this Court in the said order, the writ petition was posted for hearing today along with W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as Ext.P3 order declining the application submitted by the intending purchaser who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009 has attained finality and as the intending purchaser has not thereafter applied for temporary permit, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to issue a temporary permit of four months duration on Ext.P9 application and to periodically issue similar permits of four months duration till W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009 is heard and disposed of by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009 did not oppose the said request. In such circumstances, as the petitioner is an existing stage W.P.(C) No.5130 of 2011 5 carriage operator who has been operating the stage carriage eversince 3.4.1998 and even after disputes arose between her and the intending purchaser (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009), temporary permits were being periodically issued to her and the last of such permit was valid upto 19.2.2011, and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.2.2011, it was extended till 11.3.2011, I am of the opinion that till the disposal of W.P.(C) No.29448 of 2009, the second respondent should renew the temporary permit issued to the petitioner periodically. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to issue a temporary permit of 4 months duration, in such a manner that the petitioner can operate the stage carriage without any break. The second respondent shall periodically issue temporary permits of four months duration on the petitioner submitting an appropriate application and paying the requisite fee. However, it is clarified that such issuance of temporary permits will be subject to the outcome of W.P(C) No.29448 of 2009. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.