The court reaffirmed that renewal of transport permits must comply with statutory procedures, emphasizing that valid permits require adherence to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and associated rules.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the writ petition with the following prayers preferred by the first respondent has been allowed.

I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 and quash the same.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to reconsider the application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit submitted by the petitioner on 17.6.2011 on the original route Guruvayoor-Palakkad and grant renewal of the said permit on the curtailed route Palakkad- Pattambi in exercise of power conferred under Section 103 (2) of the Act.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that respondent-writ petitioner had submitted an application to the RTA Palakkad for issuance of a valid permit of the vehicle bearing No. KL-8-AJ-9550 on 19.6.2006 from Palakkad to Gurvayoor via Pattambi. The Secretary RTA vide communication dated 20.6.2006 granted the permit with a time table to ply the vehicle from Palakkad to Guruvayur via Pattambi effective from 20.6.2006 to 19.6.2011 with an indication that the application for renewal of the permit should be submitted 15 days prior to the expiry of the permit. The aforementioned permit also envisages the writ petitioner-respondent to obtain the counter signature of the sister RTA, Thrissur for operating the route from last district point of Palakkad entering to the Guruvayur falling in Thrissur district.

3. The sister RTA refused to counter sign which was assailed by the respondent-writ petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.31309 of 2006. The learned Single Bench vide judgment dated 27.11.2006 rejected the aforementioned claim led to institution of Writ Appeal No.712 of 2007.

4. The writ appeal was dismissed noticing certain facts that originally the respondent-writ petitioner had a permit for a particular period and his application for renewal was rejected and therefore was constrained to move a fresh application which was granted vide order Ext.P1.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent-writ petitioner during all these period plied his vehicle between Palakkad and Pattambi and there was no penal or adverse action was taken by any competent authority under the law. On expiry of the validity of the permit in 2011, the writ petitioner submitted an application for its renewal for the route Palakkad to Guruvayur, in the same manner as it was originally issued, with a clarification that the vehicle had actually operated only on the Palakkad to Pattambi route. The said application was rejected by the RTA vide order dated 29.7.2011 which was assailed before the State Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal bearing M.V.A.A No.315 of 2011.

6. Vide judgment dated 24.7.2014, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.7.2011 of the RTA, Palakkad and remitted the matter to reconsider the application submitted for renewal of permit by the petitioner or for temporary permit on the route 'Palakkad-Pattambi' after affording an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner as well as to the KSRTC. During the interregnum, i.e., in the same year, the Government had promulgated a National Scheme, under which the route from Ottappalam to Guruvayur was declared as a notified route. Meaning thereby, only the State Transport vehicle would ply on that route.

7. The aforementioned order of the Tribunal was not assailed by any of