REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred these appeals challenging the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in two writ petitions. Since the question involved and the issues raised are identical, with the consent of learned Government Pleader, these two matters are taken up together for final disposal at this stage itself. For convenience, we refer to the facts narrated in W.P.(C) No. 19513 of 2017 against which W.A. No.1466 of 2017 is filed.

(2.) The writ petitioner who is the sole respondent was granted a stage carriage operator permit in respect of vehicle No. KL-41L-1017. Due to certain reasons, he submitted an application to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority for permission to replace the vehicle. The permission was virtually rejected on the ground that the vehicle that is being sought to be brought in for replacement of the permitted vehicle was manufactured 10 years prior to the vehicle for which permit was granted. Being aggrieved by this non-action on part of the respondent, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition clearly holding that it was road worthiness and viability of the vehicle which has to be considered and not the model of the vehicle, meaning thereby, the year of manufacture of the vehicle.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State at length and we see no reason to interfere.