IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13968 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANDHU RAJ, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHETTIPARAYIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA, KOOTHATTUKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13968 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator and the owner of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-5/F 3461. The petitioner is conducting services on the route Vaikom- Thodupuzha on the strength of successive temporary permits issued to the above vehicle of his. The temporary permits were being issued to conduct services as a substitute in the place of a defaulted stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-5/G 3753. The regular permit issued to the said vehicle is valid till 20.12.2011. The tax in respect of the said vehicle is in arrears. 2. While re-issuing the temporary permit to the petitioner as per Ext.P3, it is stipulated that the temporary permit was granted to him only for a period of ten days and that further temporary permit would be issued only on clearing the tax dues of the route permit bus. The petitioner challenges the above condition. 3. According to the petitioner, he is not the owner of wpc No.13968/2010 2 the route permit bus. Therefore, he has no liability to clear the tax arrears of the said bus. He is conducting services on the strength of temporary permits issued to him, with his own vehicle. There are no tax arrears in respect of his vehicle. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to the re-issue of his temporary permit without insisting on clearance of the tax arrears in respect of the route permit bus. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader who appears for the respondent. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is conducting services on the route, Vaikom-Thodupuzha as a substitute for another vehicle with respect to which a regular permit has already been granted by the authorities. The respondent has refused to re-issue the temporary permit to the petitioner for any further period unless the tax arrears in respect of the route permit bus is cleared. Since the petitioner is not the owner of the route permit bus, he has no liability to clear the tax arrears in respect of the said vehicle. Since the route permit bus is not wpc No.13968/2010 3 conducting services on the route, it cannot be disputed that there are sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary permit to the petitioner. The stipulation in Ext.P3 that a re-issue of the petitioner's temporary permit would be made only after clearance of tax arrears of the route permit bus is therefore, without any justification, whatsoever. 6. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for the re-issue of his temporary permit, evidenced herein by Ext.P4 and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/