The authority must reconsider permit renewals in light of applicable court precedents, ensuring due process.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Nenmmara – Vazhikkadavu – Pattambi. Ext.P1 is the regular permit issued to the petitioner, which was valid upto 06.03.2009. The application for renewal of the permit was rejected by the 1^st respondent as per Ext.P5 order dated 19.07.2024. Against the same, the petitioner preferred MVAA No.7/2025 before the State Transport Appellate Authority. The State Transport Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 19.11.2025. Challenging Exts.P5 and P8, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P5 and Ext.P8 and quash Ext.P5 order of the 1^st respondent and Ext.P8 order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.7 of 2025 by issuing a writ of certiorari;

(ii) Issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit and application for replacement and pass fresh order in those application, granting renewal of permit as well as replacement as sought for by the petitioner.

(iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to obtain renewal of permit on the route Nenmmara – Vazhikkadavu – Pattambi, without reducing the route length to less than 140 Kms in view of the dictum of this Hon’ble Court KSRTC Vs. Saju Varkey and Ors. ( 2018 (4) KHC 617 )

(iv) Issue appropriate writ or direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 application for temporary permit and grant and issue the same so as to permit the petitioner to operate service on the route Mannarkkad – Vazhikkadavu (via) Perintalmanna and Pattambi.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC and the learned counsel for other respondents.

3. When the matter came up for consideration today, the petitioner limited his prayer for a disposal of the application for renewal of the permit referred to in Ext.P5, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Joy [2026 KLT Online

1066].

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 submits that they have no objection in considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of the permit afresh, in the light of the decision in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), subject to their contentions on merits before the

1^st respondent.

5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the averments in the writ petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of the permit, as expeditiously as possible, in the light of the decision in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra) and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 7, untrammelled by the observations in Exts.P5 and P8. All contentions of the parties are left open.