Court mandates reconsideration of vehicle permit application without imposing irrelevant requirements in line with prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-10X 568 operating on the route Vadakkancherry – Pavaratty. The permit which was valid upto 15/11/2021 was renewed for a further period of five years by Ext.P2. Since the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 permit is of 2005 model, he submitted Ext.P3 application for replacement of the said vehicle with vehicle No.KL 46/U 5395. By Ext.P4, the petitioner produced the records of the aforesaid vehicles for availing the renewed permit. The 2^nd respondent, vide Ext.P5, insisted the petitioner to produce the current records of the outgoing vehicle (KL 10X 568). Contending that the said requirement is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.5908/2025 before this Court which was disposed of by judgment dated

18.02.2025. Paragraph No.2 thereof reads as follows:

“2. In the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12901 of 2016, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for replacement, without insisting for production of current records of the outgoing vehicle, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On sanction of replacement, the renewed permit in terms of Ext.P2 shall be issued to the petitioner in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. KL 46 U 5395. The petitioner shall clear all the statutory dues, tax and contributions payable under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, if any, in respect of the outgoing vehicle forthwith. The renewed permit shall be issued only after all dues in respect of the outgoing vehicle is cleared as directed above.”

2. The 1^st respondent, thereafter, issued Ext.P7 proceedings, revoking the renewal granted in respect of the vehicle KL 10X 568 on the route Vadakkancherry – Pavaratty, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:

“ Since the grantee failed to produce the current records within the stipulated period of one month or the aggregate period of four months, from the date of despatch of the decision of this Authority as specified under Rule 172(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule 1989, the decision of this authority dated 13.08.2024, granting the renewal of regular permit in respect of the stage carriage KL10X568 on the route Wadakanchery – Pavaratty is hereby Revoked by invoking the provisions in Rule 172(3) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule 1989. Consequently, the application to endorse the renewal of regular permit, granted by this Authority on 13.08.2024, to the stage carriage KL 46 U 5395 (under lease agreement), which is proposed for replacement with KL 10 X 568 is hereby Rejected.”

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the decision taken in Ext.P7 is contrary to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. On going through Ext.P6 judgment and Ext.P7 decision of the 1^st respondent, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P7 is passed in total disregard to the direction in Ext.P6. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside.

6. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.