MUHAMMED SHERIF B. Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular stage carriage permit. The date of registration of the Stage Carriage covered by Ext.P1 permit is 28/8/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10/8/2022 the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application under Sec. 83 for replacing the existing vehicle with another stage carriage having date of registration as 18/4/2008. The petitioner served with Ext.P5 communication dtd. 12/8/2022 of the 2nd Respondent informing him that Ext.P3 application for replacement will be placed for consideration before the 1st Respondent in the next ensuing meeting of the said Respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter is not considered because the vehicle proposed for replacement is older than the one sought to be replaced. The petitioner relies on paragraph 53 of Ext.P6 judgment, in which it is stated that if the vehicle sought to be substituted is marginally and inconsequentially older than the vehicle covered under the permit, the authority may perhaps be justified in permitting such an application. But of course, that also only the discretion to be exercised by the 1st Respondent. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the RTA meeting is not regularly convened. The last meeting of the 1st Respondent was convened on 18/9/2021. There is no meeting of the 1st Respondent is scheduled any time in the near future. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.