P. Raghavan vs The Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod

Justice K. Surendra Mohan

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. His regular permit had expired. The regular permit was valid till 25-9-2010. Therefore, he applied for renewal of his permit. The renewal was granted by the first respondent on 21-6-2011 and the decision was communicated to the petitioner on 4-7-2011. Meanwhile, the petitioner''s vehicle, KL-14/E 5547 had completed 15 years of operation and therefore had to be replaced with another vehicle bearing registration No: KL-13/M 2343. The petitioner produced the current records of the vehicle KL-13/M 2343 on 3-11-2011, as evident from Ext. P2. Since the current records have been produced within the period of four months, the petitioner contends that his application for replacement of the vehicle should have been granted. However, by Ext. P6 decision, the first respondent has rejected the application for renewal holding that the petitioner has not produced the current records of his earlier vehicle bearing registration No: KL-14/E 5547. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary for the petitioner to produce the current records of the earlier vehicle which has become unfit for operation. Therefore, the petitioner has produced the current records of a new vehicle which should have been accepted by the first respondent, both for the purpose of renewal of the permit as well as for replacement. It is therefore contended that Ext. P6 is absolutely uncalled for and liable to be set aside. Counsel for the petitioner also placed his reliance on Ext. P8 judgment where this Court has ordered replacement, in similar circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the same relief in this writ petition also.

I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also who opposes the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the petitioner ought to have produced the current records of the earlier vehicle as directed. Since the current records were not produced as stipulated, the petitioner''s application for renewal also has been rejected.

Having considered the rival contentions advanced before me, I am satisfied that Ext. P6 order cannot be sustained. It is not disputed that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his permit within time and that the permit had been renewed on 21-6-2011. Since the petitioner''s vehicle had become unfit for operation, he had moved an application for replacement of the said vehicle. He had also placed the current records of the said vehicle before the authority. Since it is evident from Ext. P2 that the application for replacement had been filed and the current records produced well within the period of four months stipulated, there are absolutely no grounds to reject the application for replacement. It is clear from Ext. P6 that as on the date of Ext. P2, the petitioner had a valid permit that had been renewed on 21-6-2011. Therefore, the reason stated in Ext. P6 is unsustainable. Ext. P6 is accordingly set aside. This writ petition is allowed, directing the second respondent to forthwith endorse the renewal of the petitioner''s permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No: KL- 13/M 2343.