Ownership transfer is not required for vehicle permit renewal under a lease agreement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a holder of a regular permit for a stage carriage, bearing registration number KL-02-R-7011 on the route Chellanum-Perumpadappu. The said permit was valid till 03.01.2021, and the petitioner duly applied for renewal. Pending the said application, since the stage carriage covered by the permit completed 20 years, it had to be replaced.

2. Accordingly, the petitioner took possession of a later model stage carriage bearing registration number KL-13-T-5229 on the strength of a lease agreement executed with its registered owner and applied for replacement. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent insisted on endorsing the lease agreement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, and though it was not necessary, the same was endorsed, as seen from Ext.P2.

3. The application for renewal of permit and the application for replacement of vehicle were allowed through Ext.P3 order. Though the transfer application was also filed and which was initially allowed, but revoked later, as the petitioner did not comply with the condition within the time granted.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated

28.10.2025 directing him to make arrangements to ‘transfer the ownership’ of the vehicle offered for replacement, as a condition for endorsing the replacement of the vehicle in Ext.P1 permit. The petitioner challenges the same, contending that there is no requirement that the permit holder must be the owner of the vehicle, and the possession of the vehicle under a lease agreement will be sufficient.

5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent contending that in the instant case, the petitioner is granted a reserved stage carriage permit for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and since such permits can be issued only to the eligible applicants, such a permit is non-

transferable.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner has sought the replacement of the vehicle, which was under a lease agreement, and this was noticed from Ext.P3 itself. Under such circumstances, the direction in Ext.P4 is not warranted. In case the respondents feel that the reserved stage carriage permit is misused or used in violation of any provision, the official respondents can take action, as per law, but the same cannot be a reason for issuing Ext.P4.

7. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed, with a further direction to the

2^nd respondent to endorse the renewal of Ext.P1 permit and the replacement of a vehicle, as ordered in Ext.P3, without insisting on transfer of owner of the vehicle offered for a replacement of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-13-T-5229 to the name of the petitioner/permit-holder. Appropriate steps, as directed above, shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.