Kerala High Court
Salim vs The Regional Transport Authority on 20 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SALIM
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA, 10/1165 (4/230), KARANGODE VEEDU,
VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678683
BY ADV P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD 678001
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.G.P SRI. BIMAL.K.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2022
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
W.P.(C).No.16442 of 2022
==========================
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
directions with regard to consideration of his applications
for replacement and for temporary permit.
2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding a
valid permit in respect of vehicle bearing No.KL-09-R-9410.
The permit is valid upto 22/04/2022. On 11/04/2022, the
petitioner submitted an application for replacement of the
vehicle with vehicle bearing No.KL-49-N-5480. The application
is pending consideration. The petitioner has offered for
replacement, a vehicle having seating capacity of 34 in the
place of the existing vehicle which had a seating capacity of
only 28.
3. Rule 174(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules
prescribes that the vehicle offered for replacement should not
be differing in material respects from the existing one. The
WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2022
Note appended to sub-rule (3) of Rule 174 defines "material
difference" as, being one which varies more than 25% of the
gross vehicle weight or seating capacity.
4. Referring to the judgment of this Court in W.P.
(C).No.5728/2015 and connected matters, the learned counsel
for the petitioner contend that the clause regarding "material
difference" would come into play only if there is a reduction
in the seating capacity and not in a case where there is
enhancement of the seating capacity which would be beneficial
to the State Exchequer and also the travelling public.
5. No doubt, petitioner's application for replacement is
liable to be considered in accordance with law and with due
regard to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.5728/2015.
Orders shall be passed on the replacement application
expeditiously.
6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an
application for issuance of temporary permit to the new
vehicle for the route in question. On the application, Ext.P5
temporary permit was issued on 30/04/2022 for a period of 20
days which expired on 11/05/2022. He thereafter, submitted
WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2022
Ext.P6 application dated 04/05/2022 seeking further issuance
of temporary permit with respect to the new vehicle which is
pending. The application is liable to be considered in terms
of Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Let orders be
passed on the application within a period of one week.
The writ petition is disposed of with above directions.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
rsr
WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16442/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13/03/2015
IN WPC NO: 5728 OF 2015
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 22/04/2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REPLACEMENT DATED 11/04/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ROADWORTHINESS AND
ASIBILITY REPORT DATED 05/05/2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TIL
11.05/2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
MIT DATED 04/05/2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TH ND
RESPONDENT DATED 11/05/2022
