IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25049 of 2010(E)
1. UMMER K.H., KURUKKAPEEDIKA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/08/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 25049 OF 2010 E
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th August, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had purchased a vehicle bearing registration
number KL-8 D 5545 from the registered owner thereof,
Mr.P.V.Viswanathan, as per agreement dated 1.4.2002. The vehicle
was having a regular permit on the route Thrissur – Idianchira –
Pulikkakkadavu. After purchase of the vehicle, the petitioner
submitted an application for transfer before the Regional Transport
Authority, Thrissur. At that point of time, the permit holder
disputed his signature in the agreement as well as in the joint
application for transfer and renewal application. Thereupon, the
authorities declined to pass any orders on the joint application.
The petitioner then approached this Court by filing WP(C)
31235/2009. The said writ petition has been disposed of by Ext.P1
judgment dated 19/5/2010. The judgment makes reference to the
statements made by the additional third respondent therein who
was the registered owner of the vehicle to the effect that he had no
objection in granting the reliefs sought for in the said writ petition
to the petitioner for the reason that the disputes between him and
the petitioner had been amicably settled. According to him there
WPC 25049/2010 2
were some financial dealings between himself and the petitioner
and that was the reason why he had denied the signature put by
him on the renewal application as well as on the joint application
submitted by them. Therefore, he has also stated that he had no
objection to allow the renewal application of the stage carriage
vehicle KL-8 D 5545 and the joint application for transfer of the
vehicle. On the basis of the above statements, the Regional
Transport Authority, Thrissur has directed in Ext.P1 to consider the
joint application submitted by the petitioner and the registered
owner of the vehicle in accordance with law and to pass appropriate
orders thereon.
2. According to the petitioner, prior to the date of Ext.P1, the
application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner was
rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner
was not the permit holder of the vehicle. The decision of the first
respondent was challenged by the petitioner before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No: 254/2009. As per
judgment dated 10/8/2009, the appeal filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed finding that there was absolutely no evidence
available to show that the permit in favour of the third respondent
therein had been transferred to the petitioner who was the
WPC 25049/2010 3
appellant. The said judgment is Ext.P3. The petitioner did not
pursue Ext.P3 thereafter by challenging the same before any other
authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to
quash Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P1 judgment and a direction to the
second respondent to reconsider and allow the application for
renewal of the permit.
3. Ext.P3 judgment is dated 10/8/2009. True, the
application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner was
rejected relying on the objections of the original permit holder.
Since the permit had not been transferred to the name of the
petitioner, the application for renewal was rejected. The said order
of rejection was the subject matter of challenge before the first
respondent in the appeal, MVAA 254/2009. As per Ext.P3, the
order of the second respondent has been confirmed. However, the
petitioner did not challenge Ext.P3 thereafter. Consequently Ext.P3
has become final, by lapse of time. It is trite that the jurisdiction
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to
reopen matters that have become final by lapse of time.
Absolutely no reason has been stated for the delay in challenging
Ext.P3. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are any grounds to
interfere with Ext.P3 and to grant the reliefs that are sought for in
WPC 25049/2010 4
this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of this writ petition
is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to file a fresh
application for renewal of permit, if it is permissible to condone the
delay.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 25049/2010 5