AHAMMED Vs. RTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner applied for the grant of regular permit in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KL -10/M 3449 to operate on the route Karakkad -Cherpiassery. The above application was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the vehicle offered was having a regular permit on the route Ongailur -Ottappalam, which was valid upto 3.1.2007. Petitioner challenged the above order before the STAT in MVAA No.278/2002. The STAT, by Exhibit P1 judgment, allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to grant the regular permit to the petitioner to operate on the above route subject to settlement of timings. As the first respondent did not comply with the above order of the STAT so far, petitioner filed this original petition for directing the first respondent to comply with the above order of the STAT and to grant the regular permit.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is bound to comply with Exhibit P1 judgment of the STAT and to grant the regular permit as payed for. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ushakumari V Abdul Azeez (2000 (1) KLJ 141) to substantiate his argument that even without offering a vehicle or producing the current records of the vehicle the RTA is bound to consider the application for the grant of regular permit and to grant the permit and as per Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) he need produce the current records of the vehicle within thirty days from the date of grant of permit which can be extended upto four months as allowed by the competent authority. Hence, the first respondent is bound to comply with the direction of the STAT and to grant the regular permit.