IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 37318 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUNITH KUMAR.D., PRINCIPAL, SUBRAMANYA SWARA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KATTUKUKKEY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)NO.37318/09 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF BUS BEARING REG.NO.KL-14C-5361. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF THE BUS BEARING REG.NO.KLS.144. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS IN RESPECT OF THE BUS KL-14C.5361. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS IN RESPECT OF BUS NO.KLS.144. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST FOR RENEWAL DT.19.12.09. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF DECISION DT.22.1.09 TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. True copy T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37318 Of 2009 H ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Principal of a Higher Secondary School. The school was having two buses bearing registration No.KL-14/C 5361 and KLS 144. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the permits issued in respect of those two buses. They were having certificate of fitness also till 25.12.2009 and 28.5.2010. Exhibits P3 and P4 are the copies of the said certificates in respect of these two buses. For renewing the certificate of fitness, it appears that the petitioner approached the authorities concerned. But the applications were not being entertained. Exhibit P5 is the copy of one of the application. 2. Exhibit P6 is the decision by the Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod, dated 22.1.2009 which stands in the way of the renewal of the fitness certificate of the petitioner's buses. It is submitted that Exhibit P6 cannot be supported. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that as far as stage carriages are concerned, age limit of 15 years have been provided in the State. This was necessary W.P.(C)No.37318/09 -2- in the light of consideration of the safety of the travelling public. After noticing that many of these buses are used by educational institutions, it was decided as per Exhibit P6 that existing vehicles having more than 15 years' age shall be replaced on or before 1.1.2010. It is pointed out that this decision has been taken to safe guard the interest of the travelling students and public. The decision was taken on 22.1.2009 and permit owners were granted enough time to replace the vehicles having 15 years of age. Several educational institutional buses have later modified their vehicles before 1.1.2010. 4. It is pointed out that the petitioner's vehicle KL.14.C.5361 is a 1990 model vehicle and attained 20 years of age on 5.8.2009. Even though he was given one year's time to replace the vehicle, no steps have been taken to replace the same so far. Therefore, it is pointed out that if it is allowed to renew the certificate of fitness, it will obviously affect the safe travelling of students. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said decision is not having any sound basis. 5. The learned Government Pleader explained that even in Exhibit P2 it has been mentioned that vehicles shall be replaced on or before 1.1.2010. The decision taken as per Exhibit P6 W.P.(C)No.37318/09 -3- cannot be said to be wrong or faulty. The stage carriages themselves are given permission to ply upto 15 years of age and thereafter they had to be replaced. As far as the educational institution buses are concerned, the existing vehicles having more than 15 years of age were directed to be replaced on or before 1.1.2010. Such decision has been taken on consideration of safety of students and others. Such consideration cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or irrational. The petitioner's bus has already reached the age of 20 years. Therefore, evidently, the authority cannot entertain an application for issuing the certificate of fitness. I find no reason to interfere with Exhibit P6 decision of the Regional Transport Authority. The same is adopted on sound principles. Apart from that the application for renewal of fitness was submitted for a period upto 31.3.2010. That period is also over. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn