1. The petitioner, who is the holder of a regular stage carriage permit operating on the route Tholanur-Walayar with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-49/G-2020, which is a 2015 model vehicle with seating capacity of 38 in all, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to allow replacement of the said vehicle with another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/P-4010, which is a 2003 model vehicle with seating capacity of 38 seats in all, by finalising Ext.P2 application within a period of five days, as the incoming vehicle is in better roadworthy condition, though an inferior model vehicle, in view of the judgment of this Court dated 18.7.2017 in W.A.No.1466/2017.

2. The averments made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition as to roadworthiness of the vehicles read thus;

"2. As the existing vehicle was giving frequent complaints, it requires major works and replacement. Now the petitioner obtained a better road worthy condition 2003 model vehicle KL-5/P-4010 with a seating capacity of 38, and sought for replacement. The true copy of the replacement of vehicle application dated 5.12.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P2 and the Chelan receipt is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3."

(underline supplied)

3. Relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.7.2017 in W.A.No.1466/2017 [Regional Transport Authority and another v. Shaju (ILR 2017 (3) Kerala 720)] the petitioner contended that, replacement is permissible with an inferior model vehicle, provided the vehicle is in better condition. The averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition as to roadworthiness of the vehicles read thus;

“6. In the instant case, though the incoming vehicle is an inferior model vehicle, entire works are completed with and that vehicle is in a par excellent condition than the outgoing vehicle.

7. If the replacement of vehicle is not allowed immediately, it will affect the public as the existing service will come to an immediate stop as the vehicle is becoming not roadworthy and the petitioner will be put to difficulties. This Honourable Court has occasion to consider similar matters and one of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17116/2016 dated 10.5.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P4.”

(underline supplied)

4. The averments made in Grounds B and C of the writ petition as to roadworthiness of the vehicles read thus;

“(B) The replacement of vehicle with a better condition one is in the interest of travelling public. The petitioner has procured such a vehicle and sought for replacement. The inaction to consider that application is against the interest of public.

(C) The replacement application has to be effected with immediate effect as the outgoing vehicle requires maintenance and the incoming vehicle is a better condition one.”

(underline supplied)

5. On 8.12.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions and also to file statement with reference to the averment in the writ petition that, the petitioner wants to replace a 2015 model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-49/G-2020 with a 2003 model vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5/P-4010, as the 2015 model vehicle is not roadworthy.

6. On 19.12.2017, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the 2003 model vehicle offered by the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-5/P-4010 is having various damages and it is also not roadworthy. The learned Senior Government Pleader was granted two weeks' time to file statement. Pursuant to the said order, a statement has been filed by the 1st respondent dated 4.1.2018, enclosing therewith an inspection report dated 15.12.2017 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Palakkad as Annexure R1(a). As per the sai