P. RAMANKUTTY Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for a regular permit and subsequently, he was granted the same, subject to production of current records of the vehicle intended to be operated. The petitioner did not produce the current records within the 30 days time granted and the application for enlargement of time was also declined. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory revision and there was a direction to issue the granted permit.

(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner was issued with temporary permits, the last of which was valid till 21.07.2014. The order passed by the Tribunal in the Revision Petition was placed before the RTA and there was a direction also to issue the granted permit; but the Secretary refused to grant the same since the offered vehicle was a lesser model vehicle. The vehicle offered by the petitioner pursuant to the remand made by the Tribunal was an earlier model than that which was projected as intended to be operated; before the Tribunal.

(3.) WITH respect to the question, as to whether there can be a change in respect of a vehicle after grant of permit and after production of current records, before issuance of the permit, i.e., before settlement of timings, precedents are legion. To mention one, i.e., Vinod Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam ( : 1999 (2) KLJ 1092), this Court found that, before issuance of permit, a stage carriage operator who has been granted the permit can always offer a different vehicle and refusal to issue the granted permit merely for that reason cannot be sustained. It is also to be noticed that herein the rejection made by Ext. P4, is made by the Secretary; the delegate of the Regional Transport Authority. This Court has in [ : 2008(4) KLT 674] in Vishwambharan v. State of Kerala held that though the settlement of timings has been validly delegated by the Regional Transport Authority to its Secretary; for rejection as such, the application would have to be referred to the Regional Transport Authority.