IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18641 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- S.ULLAS,KATTUVILA VEEDU, PERUMKULAM, ALAMCODE,ATTINGAL. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT, AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18641 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHBITS EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT HOLDING BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE CHIRAYINKEEZH - ATTINGAL VALID UP TO 12.11.2011. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.5.2010. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 1.6.2010. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 11.6.2010. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.12000/2007 DATED 6.6.2007. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE. VK K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Chirayinkeezh-Attingal on the strength of a regular permit, Ext.P1 valid up to 12.11.2011. According to the petitioner, the existing vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-16/550 has become old and therefore a later model vehicle, KL-03/J 8753 has been offered as replacement and Ext.P2 application has been submitted for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, he had produced all the records of the new vehicle that has been offered. However, he complains that no orders have been passed on Ext.P2, till date. Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P2 on an early date. 2. I.A.No.8793 of 2010 has been filed by one Sri.A.Jeeja seeking to get herself impleaded in these proceedings. According to her, she is conducting services in the vacancy of the petitioner for the last many years. wpc No.18641/2010 2 Therefore, according to her, there is no surviving permit in existence. Consequently, it is submitted that there are no grounds for allowing the replacement that is sought for by Ext.P2. According to Smt.A.Jeeja, the petitioner had sold the vehicle as well as his permit to one Sri.Muraleedharan Nair, without the permission of the authorities. For the above reason also, it is submitted that he is not entitled to replace the old vehicle with a new one. 2. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations of Smt.A.Jeeja in paragraph-4 of the said counter affidavit. The petitioner has stated that Smt.A.Jeeja is only trying to take advantage of a complaint filed by Sri.Muraleedharan Nair. Since Ext.P1 is valid up to 12.11.2011, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to replace his old vehicle with a new one. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader Sri.K.S.Muhammed Hashim, Mr.K.V.Gopinathan Nair who appears for the petitioner and Sri.O.D.Sivadas who appears for the petitioner in the impleading petition. I have also anxiously considered the rival contentions. wpc No.18641/2010 3 4. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner is the holder of a regular permit that is valid till 12.11.2011. He has submitted Ext.P2 application for replacement of his old vehicle with a new one. The said application is still pending. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, in accordance with law. It is contended by Sri.O.D.Sivadas who appears for the additional second respondent that the petitioner is trying to transfer his permit and his vehicle to one Muraleedharan, rendering his permit liable for cancellation. I do not want to consider his objections in this writ petition for the reason that the petitioner's application is pending consideration of the first respondent. The second respondent can raise the said contentions before the first respondent who shall consider the same before passing orders on Ext.P2. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P4, the current records of the vehicle that is offered for replacement has been produced by the petitioner and he has complied with all the other formalities required for granting the replacement that has been sought for. He wpc No.18641/2010 4 has also vehemently denied the allegations made against him by the additional second respondent. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions raised before me, I feel that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, without further delay. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of the old vehicle with a new one, evidenced herein by Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the additional second respondent also in the matter. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/