Vehicle production not required at permit application stage; must be within one month post-grant per rules; saturation not ground for refusal.

JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 application of the petitioner for regular permit on the route Ambayathodu-Chala Aster MIMS Kannur HQ Hospital - Chakkrakkal was rejected by the 1st respondent by Ext.P2 order on the ground that the petitioner has not produced a ready vehicle at the time of consideration of the application for permit. Yet another reason for rejecting the application is that the route in question is well served and allowing new permits will lead to unhealthy competition among operators. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue regarding production of ready vehicle is covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench decision of this Court inJaffer v . Usman [ 2015 (4) KLT 590 ] wherein this Court has taken the view that production of vehicle at the time of consideration of application for grant of permit is not necessary and the vehicle need to be produced only within one month from the date of grant of order or within such extended time as may be permitted in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 . The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is trite law that mere fact that there is a saturation is no ground to refuse permits.

3. The learned Government Pleader has placed on record a statement filed by the 2^nd respondent and submits that Ext.P2 is appealable before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that this Court has, by Annexure R2(a) order dated 08.08.2025, issued binding directions to ensure a time limit of 5 minutes in the city and 10 minutes in rural areas in the running of stage carriages. 4. Though the petitioner has an alternative remedy, the issue is purely a question of law. I am of the view that the petitioner need not be relegated to the alternative remedy available to her. Ext.P2 order has been passed without adverting to any binding precedents of this Court on the issues involved. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside. Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular permit shall be re-considered by the 1^st respondent with due regard to the law laid down by this Court on production of vehicle at the time of consideration of application for grant of permit, saturation of service and the directions to ensure time limits in the running of stage carriages. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.