IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27794 of 2006(H)
1. P.ABDUL RASHEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :13/12/2006
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 27794 OF 2006
```````````````````````````
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was granted with regular permit on the route
Mannarghat-Agali as per the proceedings of the RTA dated
28/10/2005, produced as Exhibit P1. In Exhibit P1 decision it is
recorded that regular permit was granted to Stage Carriage
Vehicle KL-9/H 6296 subject to settlement of timings. However,
timings could not be settled until 20/07/2006. If the timings were
settled before that, normally on the production of the records, the
petitioner would have been issued a permit to the vehicle as
mentioned in Exhibit P1. In the counter statement filed for and on
behalf of the respondent, it is admitted that the current records of
the vehicle KL-9/H 6296 was produced on 22/11/2005. It is well
within the period of one month from the date of Exhibit P1. As a
matter of fact as per Rule 159 only at the time of issuance of the
permit, that certificate of registration need be produced in case
such certificate of registration could not be produced on the date
of the application for permit. However, a further period of three
months can also be availed as may be sanctioned by the authority
WPC 27794/2006
: 2 :
concerned. However, in this case the issuance of the permit has
not been taken place and the timing conference itself was held
only on 20/07/2006. The petitioner submitted a letter dated
16/10/2006 seeking to avail the granted permit by the later model
vehicle KL-10/R 8686 instead of KL-9/H 6296.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that since he
was not issued with any permit, the change in the vehicle is of no
consequence. The fact that he has mentioned the number of the
vehicle and produced records thereto within a period of one
month will not take away his right as conferred under Rule 159 of
the rules which only provides that such registration of the vehicle
need be produced within one month from the date of sanctioning
of the grant or with such extended period of three months as the
case may be.
3. The additional respondent impleaded on the other
hand would contend that merely for the reason that the petitioner
wanted to substitute the vehicle with a later model vehicle, the
timings already settled cannot be changed. Therefore, to the
extent, the prayer for convening another settlement conference is
seriously opposed.
WPC 27794/2006
: 3 :
4. The learned Government pleader appearing on behalf
of the State would submit that the authorities has not taken any
decision on the application submitted by the petitioner produced
as Exhibit R1(a) and the competent authority to consider such
application is the RTA concerned.
5. Having heard the learned Government pleader, the
counsel appearing for the additional respondent and the
petitioner, following directions are issued.
6. The RTA, Palakkad, for the limited purpose of issuing
this direction is impleaded as a party suo motu by this court. He
shall consider Exhibit R1(a) and dispose of the same in
accordance with law. Of course, if the Secretary, RTA has been
delegated in this behalf, this direction need be complied with by
the Secretary, RTA. However, in case a favourable decision is
taken on Exhibit R1(a), it is made clear that there is no need of
convening any conference for settling the timings and the permit
if any, has to be issued only to the said timings already settled.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp