IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21091 of 2010(J)
1. BALAMOHANA BABU, RATHIN NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 21091 OF 2010 J
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th July, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator who was
conducting services on the route Vanchiyam-Kayamkulam on the
strength of a regular permit. He had submitted an application for
the renewal of his permit for the period from 26/8/2003 to
25/8/2013. However, the said application was rejected on the
ground that there was violation of the scheme. Subsequently, the
said rejection was affirmed by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal also. Thereafter, as per judgment of this Court in W.P(C)
37238/2004, the petitioner continued the service on the strength
of successive temporary permits. While so, the Government issued
a notification saving the existing permits from cancellation. As per
the said notification, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to
renewal of his permit. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an
application for the renewal of his permit for the period up to
25/8/2013. A fresh application was necessitated for the reason
that though as per Ext.P2 judgment the petitioner and similar
others were directed to approach the Regional Transport Authority
for the renewal of their permits, no action was taken in view of the
WPC 21091/2010 2
confusion that was said to be prevailing regarding the power of the
authority to issue the renewal. The present application submitted
by the petitioner is Ext.P3, which is still pending.
2. Since the application for renewal of his regular permit is
pending, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application under
Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the ‘Act’ for short)
for the issue of a temporary permit. He complains that no action
has been taken on Ext.P4. The petitioner also complains that
Ext.P3 application is kept pending without completing the
formalities of obtaining concurrences from the sister authorities for
the renewal. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on Ext.P5
judgment of this Court and prays for the issue of a similar direction
to pass final orders on Exts.P3 and P4.
3. I notice that the petitioner has been pursuing his
applications for renewal of the regular permit from the year 2003
onwards. For various reasons, he has not been granted renewal of
his regular permit till date. It is no doubt true that for granting the
renewal that has been sought for in Ext.P3, the concurrence of the
sister authorities would have to be obtained. However, the said
formalities would have to be completed within a reasonable time.
WPC 21091/2010 3
4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to complete all formalities for obtaining
concurrences from the sister authorities and to pass final orders on
Ext.P3 application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Ext.P4 application which is submitted by the
petitioner under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act shall also be considered
and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 21091/2010 4