VINOD THOMAS Vs. R.T.A .,KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner gave an application for the grant of regular permit to operate service on the route Pala - Koothattukulam a portion of which will come within the jurisdiction of RTA, Ernakulam. The RTA, Ernakulam, granted concurrence and after that on 13-10-1999 in the meeting of the first respondent, decision was taken to grant permit to the petitioner. At the time of giving application for regular permit and at the lime of consideration of the application, the petitioner was having the vehicle bearing registration number KEK 6577 of 1987 model vehicle. In the application, mention is made about the vehicle. Even though decision for granting permit was taken on 13-10-1999 that was communicated to the petitioner only on 4-11-1999. In the meantime, petitioner purchased a later model vehicle KL-7/J 3655 which is a 1994 model vehicle.

(2.) In response to Ext. P2 proceedings, the petitioner produced the current records for issuance of regular permit already granted by the first respondent for the new vehicle KL-7/J 3655. Second respondent then sent Ext. P5 letter to the petitioner saying that production of current records in respect of stage carriage KL-7/J 3655 cannot be considered since it would be violation of R.159(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. In this original petition, petitioner seeks quashing of Ext. P5 and issuance of direction to the 2nd respondent to issue regular permit already granted by the first respondent to operate service with stage carriage KL-7/J 3655.

(3.) The question which arises for consideration is whether a stage carriage operator is entitled to get regular permit in respect of a vehicle which was not shown in the application for regular permit as the vehicle in respect of which the permit was applied for. The petitioner at the time of applying for regular permit was having the vehicle KEK 6577 and that vehicle was shown in the application for regular permit as the vehicle in respect of which permit was sought for. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though vehicle which the petitioner was haying at the time of giving application was shown in the application, since he sold that vehicle and purchased a later model vehicle he is entitled to get regular permit issued in respect of the new vehicle purchased by him. The contention raised by the respondents is that issuance of regular permit for a vehicle other than the vehicle which is shown in the application for granting regular permit is violation of R.159(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules.