ANIL KUMAR S Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for the grant of a fresh regular permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Olappara-Nedumparambu. In the application for regular permit the petitioner had offered to make available a vehicle before the permit is issued. The Regional Transport Authority, Kollam considered the application at its meeting held on 27.7.2009 and resolved to grant a regular permit to the petitioner subject to settlement of timings. Ext.P1 is a copy of the proceedings issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam in that regard.

(2.) After Ext.P1 was issued, the petitioner obtained a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-16D-4302 on lease from Smt. T. Suja, the registered owner of the said vehicle. Ext.P2 is a copy of the lease deed dated 9.12.2009 entered into between the petitioner and the registered owner of the said vehicle. Ext.P3 is a true copy of the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle leased out to the petitioner by Smt. Suja. The petitioner produced the originals of Exts.P2 and P3 along with other records before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam. It is stated that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam declined to issue a permit on the short ground that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle described in Ext.P3 certificate of registration. This Writ Petition is filed contending that a stage carnage operator need not necessarily own the stage carriage which is offered for service and it is enough if he is in lawful possession of the vehicle under a lease agreement. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M. Raveendran v. R.T.O. and Anr.,1995 1 KerLT 126 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam to issue a fresh regular permit in respect of the vehicle described in Ext.P3 certificate of registration to operate the stage carriage on the route Olappara-Nedumparambu, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

(3.) Sri. I. Dinesh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Raveendran's case (supra) and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dakshayani v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,1990 2 KerLT 885 contended that the petitioner who is in lawful possession of the stage carriage described in Ext.P3 certificate of registration under Ext.P2 lease deed is an owner as defined in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore the respondent ought to have issued a permit in respect of the said vehicle to him, giving effect to Ext.P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam. Per contra, Sri. K.S. Mohammed Hashim, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court has in Bhaskaran v. R.T.A.,Alleppey 2003 1 KerLT 106 held that a permit can be issued only to a registered owner. He submitted that in view of the conflict of opinion in the matter, this Writ Petition may be referred to a Division Bench for consideration. He also submitted that though on an earlier occasion O.P. No. 11495 of 2003 was referred to a Division Bench, in view of the contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge in Bhaskaran's case (supra), the Division Bench did not pronounce on the issue and that the said Writ Petition was disposed of without resolving the conflict of opinion.