IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15618 of 2010(B)
1. P.N.BIJUMON, PADAVUMPURATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15618 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator has filed this
Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 order of the first
respondent directing him to apply for a fresh permit on
the route for his new vehicle. The petitioner is conducting
services on the route Koothattukulam-Thodpuzha on the
strength of a regular permit that is valid till 17.8.2011. He
applied for replacement of his existing vehicle with a later
model vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-17/D 5599. However,
the application for replacement was not considered by the
second respondent stating that there is more than 25%
difference in seats between the original vehicle and the
vehicle that is produced for replacement. The petitioner
then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.13560/2010 challenging the said proceedings of the
second respondent. This Court directed a consideration of
the application for replacement.
2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the
WPC No.15618/2010 2
Regional Transport Authority considered the application
by circulation and the Deputy Transport Commissioner
directed grant of the replacement. However, the District
Collector, Chairman of the RTA directed the petitioner to
file an application for a fresh permit. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the said direction.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is
not necessary for the petitioner to file a fresh application
in view of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and Rule 174(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The
learned Senior Government Pleader opposes the above
submission by pointing out that there is a variation in the
seating capacity between the earlier vehicle and that the
vehicle that is offered for replacement. The earlier vehicle
has only a seating capacity of 28 while the present vehicle
has a seating capacity of 38.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. Rule 174(3) reads as follows:
“If the new vehicle proposed does not differ
in material respects from the old, the
application for replacement of the vehicle
WPC No.15618/2010 3
may be allowed. If there is material
difference between the two vehicles, the
application shall be treated as if it were for a
fresh permit”.
It can be seen from the above that in cases where
the new vehicle that is offered differs materially from the
vehicle that was earlier being used, the application is to be
treated as if it were one for a fresh permit. A similar
provision is available in the case of variation of conditions
of permit also in Section 80(3). Section 80(3) reads as
follows:
“An application to vary the conditions of any
permit, other than a temporary permit, by
the inclusion of a new route or routes or a
new area or by altering the route or routes
or area covered by it, or in the case of a
stage carriage permits by increasing the
number of trips above the specified
maximum or by the variation, extension or
curtailment of the route or routes or the
area specified in the permit shall be treated
as an application for the grant of a new
permit”.
7. In both these provisions, it is not required for the
applicant to make a fresh application. In the contingency
that is contemplated by the above provisions, the authority
is directed to treat the pending application as one for the
issue of a fresh permit and to consider the same on the
WPC No.15618/2010 4
merits. In view of the above, the direction in Ext.P4 to the
petitioner to apply for a fresh permit in respect of the new
vehicle is absolutely unjustified and uncalled for. The
respondents are bound to pass orders on the application
submitted by the petitioner, treating the same as an
application for a fresh permit, if it is found that there is
difference between the original vehicle and the new
vehicle in any material particulars.
8. In view of the above, the condition in Ext.P4 is
unsustainable and the same is set aside. The respondents
are directed to consider the application submitted by the
petitioner for replacement of his vehicle in accordance
with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon as
expeditiously as possible, if necessary by circulation also,
and at any rate within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/