IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 29440 of 2006(D)
1. REGHUNATHAN P.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :11/12/2006
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
--------------------------------
WP(C) No. 29440 of 2006
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was preferred against the
order of rejection of temporary permit on Ernakulam – Guruvayur
route. As a matter of fact, there was a regular permit, which become
ineffective by virtue of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act,
for non-payment of the tax arrears. It implies that if the minimum tax
is paid during the currency of the permit, the said permit holder could
get the permit renewed. But the petitioner then applied for a
temporary permit since the regular permit holder could not operate the
bus in the route for non-payment of the tax. It is contented that in the
above circumstances there is a temporary need for issuing a permit.
The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand would submit that a temporary permit would be issued
only on the conditions prescribed under Sec. 87 MVT Act. According to
him no such circumstances has been arisen. Heard both sides.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
WP(C) No. 29440/2006
-2-
the petitioner that there is a particular temporary need and according
to him when the regular permit holder is not running the bus, it implies
that there is a temporary need. I cannot agree with the temporary
need made are covered under Sec. 87(c). If the regular permit issued
is ineffective by virtue of Sec. 15, the permit itself can be made
effective by paying the arrears of tax. There is no case for the
petitioner that the period of the very regular permit has expired. In
such circumstances, the petitioner has to satisfy a particular temporary
need, otherwise than as mentioned above. No such temporary need is
mentioned in the application. The appellate authority in such
circumstances, found that Sec. 87(1) is not attractive. I don’t find any
merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE)
jg