IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32332 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.T.VASU,S/O.APPUNNI, NELLIKKATHARAYIL HOUSE,VETTOM P.O., TIRUR,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.32332 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Purathur-Koottayi Azhimugham touching Vairamkode in Malappuram District as per a regular permit. When the period of the validity of the permit expired, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the permit before the respondent. Since there was delay in disposing of the same, the petitioner obtained Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C).No. 23150/2009 for disposal of the application for renewal expeditiously, if the petitioner compiles with all statutory conditions for the same. According to the petitioner, the petitioner complied with the conditions stipulated by law, in spite of which, the respondent did not consider the renewal application of the petitioner stating that no objection certificate from the financier has not been produced by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that since the petitioner had already issued Exts.P5 and P6 notices and the financier has not responded to the same, the petitioner is entitled to have his application considered without further reference to the financier. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to consider the renewal of permit application, Ext.P1, of the petitioner within such time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. 2 And b) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.” 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner approached the respondent with a contention that the financier is Sreeram Investments Ltd. However, on perusal of the RC book, it was found that the endorsement therein is that the financier is the UTI Bank, Cochin. It is under the above circumstances, they have issued Ext.P7 letter to the Manager of the UTI Bank, Cochin. The Government Pleader points out that it is because of the fault of the petitioner in not placing the correct facts before the respondent that the delay in disposal of the application occurred. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances revealed, I am of opinion that the respondent shall consider the application for the renewal of the permit submitted by the petitioner after issuing notice to the two financiers mentioned. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3