U.Manoharan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 20 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1012 of 2008()


1. U.MANOHARAN, URALATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, MALAPPURAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :20/08/2009

 O R D E R
     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.

                   ------------------------------
                      W.A. No.1012 of 2008
                   ------------------------------

              Dated this, the 20th day of August, 2009


                           JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was having

a regular permit on the route Chaliyam – Kozhikode. Since the

validity of the permit was going to expire on 5.3.2005, he

applied for its renewal on 15.2.2005. The consideration of the

application for renewal was delayed for want of concurrence

from the sister R.T.A., Kozhikode. The primary R.T.A. was

R.T.A., Malappuram. So, he was operating on the basis of

temporary permit obtained under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. In 2006, the vehicle attained the age of 15 years.

So, he could not operate thereafter, on the route. Later, he

submitted an application on 5.6.2007 for replacement of the old

vehicle by a new vehicle. The said application was adjourned by

Ext.P4. Therefore, he approached this court by filing a writ

petition. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment [W.P.(C)

W.A. No.1012 of 2008:

– 2 –

No.33621/07], directed the R.T.A., Malappuram to consider his

application for renewal of the permit and also the application for

replacement of the old vehicle by a new vehicle. Pursuant to

the said direction, the R.T.A. considered the applications and

rejected both the applications by Ext.P6 order. The present

writ petition was filed challenging the said order.

2. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision

of the Division Bench in Rashinlal v. R.T.A. Kottayam, 2004

(1) KLT 1091, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that, the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge has no

application to the facts of the present case. At the time of the

admission of the appeal, the Division Bench passed an interim

order directing the R.T.A. to grant renewal of the permit as also

replacement of the old vehicle. In obedience to the said

direction, permit was granted and he is now operating. The

learned Government Pleader submitted that Section 83 of the

W.A. No.1012 of 2008:

– 3 –

M.V. Act governs replacement of the vehicle, which provides

that only an existing permit holder can apply for replacement.

In this case, it is pointed out that, as the appellant is no longer

a permit holder after 2006, his application for replacement is

not maintainable. Since the application for replacement was

filed on 5.6.2007, the R.T.A. could have rejected it, on the

ground of non-existence of permit or kept it pending till the

renewal is decided, it is submitted.

4. Section 83 of the Act reads as follows:

“83. Replacement of vehicles.- The

holder of a permit may, with the permission of the

authority by which the permit was granted, replace

any vehicle covered by the permit by any other

vehicle of the same nature.”

We agree with the learned Government Pleader that only an

existing permit holder can maintain an application for

replacement of the vehicle. But, the existence of a vehicle is

not a condition precedent, for maintaining an application for

permit. We think, the said principle can be extended for

W.A. No.1012 of 2008:

– 4 –

renewal of permit also. In view of the above position, we quash

Ext.P6 and direct the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

to consider the application of the appellant for renewal of the

permit in accordance with law, within two months from the date

of production of a copy of this judgment. After renewal of the

permit, his application for replacement of the vehicle should be

considered and disposed of within one month thereafter. Till

such time, the appellant can operate the service with the

vehicle for which he obtained permit on the strength of the

interim order passed by this Court on 28.5.2008, provided he is

otherwise eligible.

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.S. Gopinathan,
Judge.

DK.

(True copy)