SEETHAL Vs. RTA TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a grantee of a regular stage carriage permit, is challenging Ext. P5 whereunder the RTA declined an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner for production of current records of the vehicle beyond four months for issue of permit. RTA granted a regular stage carriage permit to the petitioner vide Ext. P1 proceedings dated 28.8.2002. It is seen from the photocopy of Ext. P1 produced that the proceeding was signed for communication on 20.9.2002 and on that day the petitioner concedes to have received it. According to the petitioner, petitioner made an application vide Ext. P2 on 19.10.2002 for grant of maximum time for production of current records in terms of R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner there was no response and the RTA has not revoked Ext. P1 permit granted to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner produced current records Ext. P3 on 25.2.2003 for issue of permit further to Ext. P1 grant of it. Petitioner also filed Ext. P4 which is in the nature of request for condonation of delay in furnishing current records of the vehicle for issue of permit. It is against this request of the petitioner, that the RTA vide its proceedings dated 27.3.2002 rejected the petitioner's request for time for production of current records of the vehicle or in other words rejected the current records produced by the petitioner beyond the maximum period permissible under R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner even today RTA has not revoked the permit in terms of R.159(2) of the Rules and the petitioner's prayer in the Original Petition is for a direction to the RTA to condone the delay in production of current records and issue the permit granted to him under Ext. P1, which according to him, is still in force.

(2.) Government Pleader on the other hand contended that issue of permit itself was conditional and as is evident from the endorsement in Ext. P1 wherein the RTA has directed the petitioner to produce the current records within one month in terms of R.159(2) of the rules and as a consequence of the failure on the part of the petitioner, the permit will stand automatically cancelled is his contention. However, the RTA has not taken this extreme view, even in the impugned proceedings dated 27.3.2003. According to the Government Pleader this is on account of the misconception of the RTA about the legal position and the permit no longer survives by operation of the statutory provision particularly R.159(2) read with the condition imposed in Ext. P1 itself under S.72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) I have gone through the permit granted, namely, Ext. P1 wherein there is a general condition annexed to it in the following lines: