Muhammed Sherif B vs Regional Transport Authority Thiruvananthapuram

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to forthwith consider and pass orders of Ext.P3 application for replacement of vehicle by circulation of papers under Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 in the light of the dictum laid down in paragraph 53 of Ext.P6 judgment.

ii. Issue such other writ order or direction as this Honorable Court may deem fit and apposite in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (sic)

The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular stage carriage permit. The date of registration of the Stage Carriage covered by Ext.P1 permit is 28.08.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.08.2022 the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application under Section 83 for replacing the existing vehicle with another stage carriage having date of registration as 18.04.2008. The petitioner served with Ext.P5 communication dated 12.08.2022 of the 2nd respondent informing him that Ext.P3 application for replacement will be placed for consideration before the 1st respondent in the next ensuing meeting of the said respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter is not considered because the vehicle proposed for replacement is older than the one sought to be replaced. The petitioner relies on paragraph 53 of Ext.P6 judgment, in which it is stated that if the vehicle sought to be substituted is marginally and inconsequentially older than the vehicle covered under the permit, the authority may perhaps be justified in permitting such an application. But of course, that also only the discretion to be exercised by the 1st respondent. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the RTA meeting is not regularly convened. The last meeting of the 1st respondent was convened on 18.09.2021. There is no meeting of the 1st respondent is scheduled any time in the near future. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to convene the meeting within a period of one month in the light of Rule 123 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. If there is any practical difficulty in convening the meeting, the issue will be circulated under Rule 130 of the KMV Rules.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement of vehicle in the RTA meeting, which shall be scheduled within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the light of Rule 123 of the KMV Rules. If the RTA meeting is not able to schedule within one month, the same should be circulated among the members of the RTA under Rule 130 of the KMV Rules.