IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25949 of 2008(L)
1. HARIHARASUTHAN, S/O.PARTHASARATHY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.25949/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 is the permit issued to the petitioner, which was
valid up to 23.3.2006 and according to the petitioner his
renewal application is pending before the first respondent.
However, the matter is still pending for the reason that the
concurrence of the RTA Kozhikode and Malappuram are
awaited. According to the petitioner, concurrence was
rejected by the RTA Kozhikode on an earlier occasion and
the STAT allowed his revision and the matter is still pending
before the RTA Kozhikode without any final order. Similar is
the position regarding Malappuram where also matter is
pending.
2. In the meantime the petitioner operating his vehicle
on the basis of temporary permits, the last of which is
WP(c).No.25949/2008 2
Ext.P3 valid up to 27.8.2008. Though he has filed Ext.P4 for
issue of the temporary permit, orders have not been passed.
Therefore this writ petition has been filed.
3. The first prayer in this writ petition is to direct that
the first respondent shall expedite the proceedings for the
renewal of the regular permit. In view of the fact that the
concurrence of the RTA Malappuram and Kozhikode are
awaited, it is directed that the first respondent shall get the
concurrence from the RTA Malappuram and Kozhikode
expedited and orders on the renewal application shall be
passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
4. Regarding the temporary permit application there
arises a difficulty. In view of Rule 260A of the KMV Rules,
a vehicle can be operated as Fast Passenger Service only for
5 years. In this case, that period has already expired and
Petitioner does not have a new vehicle for deployment. If
WP(c).No.25949/2008 3
that be so, the rule stands in the way. Therefore, the only
direction that is possible is that, Ext.P4 will be considered
on the petitioner producing necessary document, satisfying
the requirements of Rule 260A of the Rules.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.25949/2008 4