MANJU ANANDAKUTTAN Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kottayam - Vaikom bearing Registration No. KL-38/A-7598. The permit was valid till 24.05.2012. The petitioner did not apply for renewal of the permit within the prescribed time. However, he has later on, submitted an application accompanied by a petition for condonation of the delay in submitting the same. The renewal application as well as the petition for condonation of delay are pending consideration of the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application for the issue of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the Act for short ). The petitioner complains that his applications have not been considered by the authorities, till date.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that since the petitioner's renewal application was not submitted within time, the question of condonation of delay has to be considered by the 1st respondent. For the above reason, W.P.(C) No. 13832 of 2012 2 an application for temporary permit under Section 81(1)(d) is not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner points out in reply to the above contention that since the vacancy is available, the application of the petitioner may be considered under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act. It is also contented that the application for temporary permit can be considered by the 2nd respondent. Reliance is also placed with Ext.P6, an interim order issued by this court directing the issue of temporary permits until the renewal application of the petitioner therein was considered and finally disposed of.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. In view of the fact that the petitioner's application for renewal of regular permit supported by the petition for condanation of delay is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, it is only appropriate that the said authority considers the petitioner's application for temporary permit also. According to the counsel for the petitioner, such an exercise would be time consuming and would result in the vehicle being kept idle for a long period of time. I am satisfied that the above situation can be remedied by issuing appropriate directions to the 1st respondent.