BABU Vs. R T A THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P5 decision dated 18.4.2008 of the Secretary, R.T.A. and Ext.P6 decision dated 10.7.2008 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was granted a permit on the circular route Shornur-Shornur, by Ext.P1 proceedings of the R.T.A., Thrissur. In the application, he mentioned the registration number of the vehicle, as KL.10/C-1643. It is common ground that Ext.Pl decision was communicated to the appellant and he received it on 20.3.2007. He claims that on 13.7.2007 he produced the current records of the vehicle, KL.10/B 8584. But, according to the respondents, he produced them only on 6.8.2007. So, the permit was cancelled by the R.T.A., for not producing the current records within four months, the time stipulated in Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, that is before 20.7.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the R.T.A. to reconsider the matter and again the R.T.A. decided against the petitioner/appellant by Ext.P5. The said proceeding was upheld by the S.T.A.T. by Ext.P6 judgment. The Writ Petition filed against those proceedings, Exts.P5 and P6, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant produced the current records of the new vehicle on 13.7.2007, which was within four months from the receipt of Ext.P1 communication. An applicant, even without a vehicle is entitled to get the permit. He need only produce the current records of the vehicle within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, it is submitted. But, we notice that the respondents dispute the above claim. They assert that the appellant had not produced the registration certificate of the vehicle within time and it was produced only on 6.8.2007. The said finding has been affirmed by the S.T.A.T. and the learned Single Judge. It being a finding of fact, we cannot interfere with the same.