IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23074 of 2010(H)
1. P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKKODE
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :01/10/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 23074 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Tlhe petitioner has been operating stage carriage
service on the route Karuvathiruthy – Medical College with
stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-11-X-871.
According to the petitioner, he has been operating the said
service in the vacancy occurred on account of cessation of
operation of stage carriage service by the regular permit
holder with stage carriage bearing registration Nos. KL-7-P-
4122 and KL-7-H-7756. In the said circumstances, the
petitioner has applied for regular permit as per Ext.P3
application. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the
receipt of Ext.P3 application, no decision has been taken
thereon. The petitioner has yet another grievance. According
to him the authorities used to grant temporary permit on
remittance of the requisite fee of Rs.1,000/- only for 20 days.
It is permissible to grant temporary permit for 4 months with
the same rate, it is contended. According to him the
temporary permit now granted to him is due to expire.
WPC.23074/2010
: 2 :
Therefore, he seeks a direction to the authorities to consider
whether after receiving the same rate of fee, the temporary
permit for 4 months could be granted instead of 20 days’
temporary permit. I am of the view that these matters are to
be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with
law.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned Government Pleader. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that as on today, there is no
vacancy at all.
3. Admittedly, Ext.P3 application for regular permit
submitted by the petitioner is pending before the first
respondent. Therefore, without making any observation as to
the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent
to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application in
accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment with notice to the petitioner as also the other
operators on the route.
WPC.23074/2010
: 3 :
4. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner
regarding the action on the part of respondents in issuing
temporary permits with validity only for 20 days, despite the
provision for granting the same for 4 months with the same
rate, I do not think that this Court will be justified in passing
any orders. It is a matter to be decided by the competent
authority in accordance with law. That apart, the period of
temporary permit issued to the petitioner is still in force.
Therefore, at the time of submitting the application for re-
issuance of temporary permit, it will be open to the petitioner
to make such a request before the competent authority viz.,
the second respondent in which event, the second respondent
shall consider the said issue in accordance with law.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge