High Court Kerala High Court

Sulaja vs The Secretary on 22 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sulaja vs The Secretary on 22 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17876 of 2010(H)


1. SULAJA, SULAJA BHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :22/07/2010

 O R D E R
                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C) NO: 17876 OF 2010 H
                -----------------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 22nd July, 2010.

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage

vehicle bearing registration No: KL 16/7227. She submitted an

application for the issue of a temporary permit on the route Anchal-

Kottiyam in the vacancy of stage carriage vehicle No: KL 2/W 4599.

The original route bus is not operating and the timings of the said

vehicle is also vacant. According to the petitioner there is both

regular need and a temporary need in existence. Therefore, the

respondent is bound to consider the application and to grant the

permit under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

However, without considering the temporary need Ext.P1 order has

been passed rejecting application for temporary permit submitted

by the petitioner. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 is

unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned

senior Govt. Pleader also.

2. A reading of Ext.P1 order shows that the petitioner’s

application for temporary permit has been rejected for the only

reason that the regular permit of the route bus has expired on

21/4/2010 and the route bus has no regular permit at present.

WPC 17876/2010 2

The question that should have been considered by the authority

was whether there was a temporary need in existence. If there was

a temporary need, the petitioner was certainly entitled to be

granted the temporary permit that was sought for. However, the

respondent has not considered the above aspect, which was the

only question that should have been considered. In view of the

above Ext.P1 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider

the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner

afresh and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of ten days

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ

petition is disposed of accordingly.





                                          K. SURENDRA MOHAN
                                                   Judge
jj

WPC 17876/2010    3