IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5797 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAFREENA ALI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.ALI, THURKEY BAZAR, KALPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5797 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-10-4118, which had a valid permit till 10.11.2008. Admittedly, in 2004 the vehicle was destroyed in a fire accident. However, it is seen that the petitioner continued to file G.form and was also obtaining temporary permits. 2. Finally the temporary permit application was rejected on the basis that in view of the fact that the vehicle itself was destroyed the permit stand cancelled. That oder was challenged by the petitioner in MVAA.No.776/2007. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 17.12.2007 dismissed that appeal. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for replacement and for same reasons on which temporary WP(c).No.5797/08 /2/ permit was declined this application was also rejected as per Ext.P4. Against Ext.P4, the petitioner filed MVAA.NO.565/08 and that appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P7 judgment, following the judgment in MVAA.No.776/07. It is challenging Ext.P7 that this writ petition is filed. 4. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of Ext.P7, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P7. As stated by the Tribunal, on the same reason assigned in Ext.P4, temporary permit application was rejected and that was confirmed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 17.9.2008 in MVAA.No.776/009 and that judgment has become final. If that be so, the rejection of the replacement now sought for by Ext.P4 and its confirmation by Ext.P7 can only be upheld and I do so. Writ Petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5797/08 /2/