IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18641 of 2010(E)
1. S.ULLAS,KATTUVILA VEEDU,PERUMKULAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :21/07/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting
services on the route Chirayinkeezh-Attingal on the
strength of a regular permit, Ext.P1 valid up to
12.11.2011. According to the petitioner, the existing
vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-16/550 has become old and
therefore a later model vehicle, KL-03/J 8753 has been
offered as replacement and Ext.P2 application has been
submitted for the said purpose. According to the
petitioner, he had produced all the records of the new
vehicle that has been offered. However, he complains that
no orders have been passed on Ext.P2, till date.
Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions for the
consideration of Ext.P2 on an early date.
2. I.A.No.8793 of 2010 has been filed by one
Sri.A.Jeeja seeking to get herself impleaded in these
proceedings. According to her, she is conducting services
in the vacancy of the petitioner for the last many years.
wpc No.18641/2010 2
Therefore, according to her, there is no surviving permit
in existence. Consequently, it is submitted that there are
no grounds for allowing the replacement that is sought for
by Ext.P2. According to Smt.A.Jeeja, the petitioner had
sold the vehicle as well as his permit to one
Sri.Muraleedharan Nair, without the permission of the
authorities. For the above reason also, it is submitted
that he is not entitled to replace the old vehicle with a new
one.
2. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit
refuting the allegations of Smt.A.Jeeja in paragraph-4 of
the said counter affidavit. The petitioner has stated that
Smt.A.Jeeja is only trying to take advantage of a complaint
filed by Sri.Muraleedharan Nair. Since Ext.P1 is valid up
to 12.11.2011, the petitioner contends that he is entitled
to replace his old vehicle with a new one.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader
Sri.K.S.Muhammed Hashim, Mr.K.V.Gopinathan Nair who
appears for the petitioner and Sri.O.D.Sivadas who
appears for the petitioner in the impleading petition. I
have also anxiously considered the rival contentions.
wpc No.18641/2010 3
4. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner is the holder of a
regular permit that is valid till 12.11.2011. He has
submitted Ext.P2 application for replacement of his old
vehicle with a new one. The said application is still
pending. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to
consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, in
accordance with law. It is contended by Sri.O.D.Sivadas
who appears for the additional second respondent that the
petitioner is trying to transfer his permit and his vehicle to
one Muraleedharan, rendering his permit liable for
cancellation. I do not want to consider his objections in
this writ petition for the reason that the petitioner’s
application is pending consideration of the first
respondent. The second respondent can raise the said
contentions before the first respondent who shall consider
the same before passing orders on Ext.P2.
5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per
Ext.P4, the current records of the vehicle that is offered
for replacement has been produced by the petitioner and
he has complied with all the other formalities required for
granting the replacement that has been sought for. He
wpc No.18641/2010 4
has also vehemently denied the allegations made against
him by the additional second respondent. Without going
into the merits of the rival contentions raised before me, I
feel that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the
first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2
application, without further delay.
6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the
application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of
the old vehicle with a new one, evidenced herein by
Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, after hearing the additional second
respondent also in the matter.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/