IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22658 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.M.CHAKKAPPAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, SOUTH ADUVASSERY, KUNNUKKARA VILLAGE, KUNNUKKARA P.O., NORTH PARUR. BY ADV.MR.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SOUTHERN HIMALAYA CHITTIES (P) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE ADVOCATE RECEIVER & SPECIAL OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. PRAMOD KUMAR V., S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS, SREEVILAS, VELIYATHUNAD, ALANGAD. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/08/2009 IN I.A.NO.10125/2009) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. MR. P.RAMAKRISHNAN ADDL.R3 BY ADVS. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22658/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AN 2705 which was being operated with a regular permit on the route North Parur – Manjapra. It seems that, according to the petitioner, the vehicle was transferred by him and possession delivered to the partners of M/s Southern Himalaya Chitties (P) Limited under Ext.P1 agreement dated 16.12.2004. Liquidation proceedings were initiated in relation to the said Company and the assets of the Company have now been placed under the custody of the Receiver. Receiver took possession of the aforementioned vehicle as well. Operation of regular permit with the said vehicle therefore ceased. One Pramod Kumar who has got himself impleaded vide I.A.No.10125/2009, then applied for a temporary permit in the vacancy caused by the cessation of operation of KL-07/AN 2705. Pramod Kumar the additional respondent was operating the vehicle under the temporary permit for almost two years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had purchased another vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13/M 8283 and he also applied for a W.P.(C).22658/09 2 temporary permit on the same route. The application for temporary permit filed by Pramod Kumar, the additional respondent, was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner was rejected under Ext.P4. This was challenged before the STAT and by Ext.P5, STAT affirmed Ext.P4 order. Petitioner then approached this Court in W.P.(C).3730/2009 wherein this Court directed the RTA to consider the application for temporary permit untrammelled by Ext.P5. There upon, the 1st respondent considered the rival claims of the petitioner and Pramod Kumar and granted temporary permit in favour of the petitioner rejecting the claim of Pramod Kumar. By Ext.P8, the Tribunal affirmed Ext.P7. Exts.P7 and P8 are challenged in W.P.(C).13429/2009 pending on the files of this Court. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner has been operating on temporary permit and while so, Ext.P11 communication was issued by the Receiver to the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, expressing an apprehension that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner with which he has been operating on a temporary permit, KL-13/M 8283, is an asset which is traceable to the Compay under liquidation viz, Southern Himalaya Chit Funds. Request has therefore, been not W.P.(C).22658/09 3 made to act upon the application for re-issuance of temporary permit filed by the petitioner. The same is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. I heard Mr.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Preethi Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the Receiver and Mr.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, learned counsel for the additional respondent. 4. It was of course open to the Receiver to take such steps as are necessary to see that the assets which actually belong to the Company but which may stand in the name of others are traced out and then brought to the notice of the Court with a request that the order appointing the Receiver may comprehend the same. Any motion by the Receiver will also have to be adjudicated by the Court that has appointed a Receiver for the assets of the Company under liquidation. Since no such order has been passed, treating the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration No.KL- 13/M8283 as an asset of the Company, petitioner would be entitled to deal with the same as his asset. In such circumstances, any application filed by the petitioner for re- issuance of the temporary permit shall be dealt with in W.P.(C).22658/09 4 accordance with law. 5. But I make it clear that if any application for temporary permit is filed by the additional respondent to operate on the same route caused by the vacancy of the vehicle, KL-07/AN 2705, then such application filed by the additional respondent should be dealt with along with the application filed by the petitioner. Decision shall be taken on such applications within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. I further make it clear that this direction shall not stand in the way of the Receiver taking such steps as are necessary, to see that the assets belonging to the Company, Southern Himalaya Chitties (P) Limited are traced out and brought under the custody of the Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs