JYOTHI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6516 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30.03.2021 in the aforesaid writ petition, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and declined the following reliefs sought for:

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

(3.) According to the appellant, it was contended before the Tribunal that the primary vehicle having a seating capacity of 43 in all had been replaced subsequently with the existing vehicle covered by Ext. P1 permit, having a seating capacity of 33 in all. The case of the appellant is that the aforesaid contention was accepted by the Tribunal and by Ext. P6 judgment dated 31.10.2019, Ext. P5, decision of the first respondent was set aside and directed to reconsider the application for replacement as well as renewal on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. But, it was made clear that the first respondent shall grant renewal and replacement, if there was no other legal impediment. The contention of the appellant is that in spite of the directions so issued, the first respondent, as per Ext. P7 decision dated 07.01.20220, again rejected the application for replacement stating that there is material difference between the primary vehicle and the proposed incoming vehicle. In arriving at Ext. P7 decision, the first respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rapheal Mathew v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority [unreported judgment of this Court dated 13.03.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 5728 of 2015 and connected cases] to substantiate its finding that the difference in seating capacity has to be reckoned with respect to the primary vehicle. It was, thus, challenging Ext. P7 decision of the first respondent, the writ petition in question was filed.