IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20056 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. HARIHARASUTHA,S/O. PARTHASARATHY, MULLAMPATHIL HOUSE, KADAVATH, PARALI, PALAKKAD. 2. NACHIMUTHU, MRC ILLAM, NEAR VINAYAKAR KOIL, VELANTHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20056/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent. 2. 1st petitioner is the holder of a regular stage carriage permit operating a fast passenger service on an inter district route with vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13/J 4181. 1st petitioner has sought for a renewal of the permit which is pending. 3. In the meanwhile, the vehicle which was being operated, completed five years and therefore, 1st petitioner procured a later model vehicle from the 2nd petitioner, on lease, as evidenced by Ext.P2. He then sought for a temporary permit in relation to the later model vehicle. By Ext.P4, RTA rejected the application on the ground that the primary permit has no validity and the vehicle produced by the applicant, the 1st petitioner, is not legally owned by him. W.P.(C).20056/2009 2 4. By Ext.P5, the appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal with the following order. In the result, this appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the first respondent is directed to grant temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V.Act, pending consideration of his application for renewal of permit, if actually the appellant is in possession of the vehicle in question under a valid agreement or lease or hypothecation. 2nd respondent is directed to pass the order within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioners' grievance is that further steps have not been taken by the 1st respondent. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the 2nd respondent, RTA, itself takes a decision on the application for a temporary permit, since the route is an inter district route. 6. The Tribunal has already held that lawful possession W.P.(C).20056/2009 3 of the vehicle by the 1st petitioner, in spite of the fact that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle shall suffice. Accordingly, 1st petitioner may cause the production of an affidavit by the 2nd respondent affirming the lease of the vehicle and if it is so produced, 2nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter of re-issuance of the temporary permit, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs