IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2741 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT.RAMLA, MADIKERATH PARAMBIL, P.O.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2741 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had submitted an application for transfer of permit in respect of a Stage Carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-13A/9483. The permit was originally issued to one M.Abdul Nazar for operating on the route Kuttikkadavu-Kozhikode. The permit was valid till 6.7.2007. The permit holder and the petitioner submitted a joint application for transfer of the permit in favour of the petitioner. Though the application was considered in the RTA meeting held on 10.7.2006 as evidenced by Ext.P1, it was adjourned. The reason for the adjournment is stated to be the expiry of the permit on 6.7.2007. Therefore, it is contended that the permit holder herself had submitted an application for renewal, which has been granted by the first respondent. The petitioner contends that since there is a valid permit in existence, the first respondent ought to have placed the joint application for transfer of permit for consideration of the RTA. She has wpc No.2741/2010 2 approached this Court for necessary directions for considering her application, expeditiously. 2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the permit of the vehicle in question had expired on 6.7.2007. However, subsequently the permit has been renewed on 30.7.2007. It is further submitted that the tax in respect of the vehicle is in arrears from 1.7.2006 onwards. The permit holder is alleged to have intimated the authorities that the vehicle was already dismantled. It is further submitted that on 5.5.2009, the permit holder had informed the authorities not to endorse the permit in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above development, the Government Pleader submits that it would not be possible to pass any orders on the joint application submitted by the petitioner and Sri.M.Abdul Nazar. 3. I have heard the counsel on either side and considered the contentions of the rival parties. 4. It appears that after submission of the joint application, the petitioner and Sri.M.Abdul Nazar have fallen apart. There appear to be disputes subsisting wpc No.2741/2010 3 among them. There is a civil suit also pending against them. Copy of the interim order of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode in I.A.No.5039/2009 in O.S.No.1178/ 2009 has been handed over to me for perusal by the learned Government Pleader. The order shows that the petitioner had approached the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode and the court has issued an order of temporary injunction restraining the permit holder from getting the permit transferred to any person other than the petitioner. No doubt, there are disputes between the parties and an Original Suit is also pending between them. However, I do not see any objection to the first respondent considering the application and passing orders thereon, in accordance with law. If the application is not maintainable or if the same cannot be considered in accordance with law at this stage, the first respondent is free to reject the same for the said reason. However, there is no justification for keeping the application pending without passing any orders thereon. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to place the joint wpc No.2741/2010 4 application submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent, to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner as well as all other interested parties. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/