IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31093 of 2010(J) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMEDKUTTY T.P., S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, WESTAR CLASSIC, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 323. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31093 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Managing Director of Westar Classic. The firm operates a stage carriage service on the route Perinthalmanna - Ottapalam with stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-9G 2455. Subsequently, the firm purchased later, model vehicle bearing registration No. KL-53 B 5207. Though the permit of the existing vehicle viz., KL- 9G 2455 stands in the name of the Managing Partner, Westar Classic, Pulamanthole, Perinthalmanna, the latter model vehicle bearing registration No. KL-53 B 5207 was registered in the name of Muhammedkutty T.P., S/o. Moideenkutty, Managing Partner, Westar Classic, Pulamanthole P.O., Perinthalmanna, Malappuram-678 323. The petitioner herein has preferred Ext.P5 application for replacement of the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has taken a stand that the application for replacement of vehicle would not be considered on account of the fact that the existing vehicle stands in the name of the WPC.NO.31093/2010 : 2 : Managing Partner whereas the incoming vehicle stands in the name of Muhammedkutty. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 Partner ship deed would reveal that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm and therefore, according to the petitioner the said reason shall not stand in the way of consideration of the application for replacement of the vehicle. 2. Be that as it may, it is the fact that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P5 application for replacement of the vehicle before the respondent. If any further details for the purpose of taking a decision on Ext.P5 including consent letter from other partners are required it will be open to the respondent to call for such details from the petitioner and to provide time fore the petitioner to produce such documents. At any rate, the respondent is bound to pass orders on Ext.P5 application. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P5 application and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge