IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18431 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.SASIKALA, W/O.RAJAN PILLAI, THOTTAMON, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT: ------------------------ REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18431/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE KL-3/E 5059. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-3/E-5059. EXT.P3: COPY OF LEASE DEED EVIDENCING TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF THE NEW VEHICLE KL-34-7099. EXT.P4: COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE FEE FOR REPLACEMENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STAT'S ORDER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18431 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 26, 2008 JUDGMENT The delay in considering Ext.P5 application for replacement of a stage carrier is complained in by the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of KL-3/E 5059 operating on the strength of a regular permit valid till 2012 in the route Ranni - Mannar. It is stated that as the vehicle was in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner got on lease a later model stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-34/7099 and Ext.P3 is the lease deed. Thereupon he made Ext.P5 application for replacement and orders are not passed. 3. According to the petitioner, this is for the reason that the respondent entertained a doubt that replacement cannot be sought for with a vehicle on lease. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment rendered by the STAT in an identical situation and that too arising out of an order passed by the respondent herein. A reading of the judgment shows that WP(C) 18431/08 2 the STAT was rightly following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Raveendran v. RTA, Kannur - 1995 (1) KLJ 96. 4. In view of the law laid down by this court and followed by the STAT as per Ext.P6, the position that one need not be the registered owner of the vehicle for replacement does not admit of any ambiguity. Therefore the respondent should necessarily pass orders on Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P6 and the Division Bench decision of this court. This the respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-