Upon the dismissal of an appellate proceeding that served as the basis for a court-ordered stay, administrative authorities are free to consider a previously pending application for vehicle replacement in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-55- AC-2083 on the route Tanur – Kozhikode. The petitioner submitted application for replacement to replace the aforesaid vehicle with vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 55-T-7353. However, the said application was rejected by the RTA as per Ext.P1 dated 29.08.2022. The petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P1 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘STAT’). During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner purchased a later model vehicle with Registration No.KL-76-D-0716 and filed Ext.P2 application for replacement. The petitioner filed WP(C) No.16581 of 2024 before this Court for early disposal of the Ext.P2 application. This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment, directed the RTA to pass orders on Ext.P2 application within two months. The second application for replacement (Ext.P2) was allowed by the RTA as per Ext.P4.

2. Contending that Ext.P3 judgment was obtained suppressing the pendency of the appeal before the STAT, the 3^rd respondent preferred W.A.No.1296 of 2024 challenging Ext.P3 judgment. The Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P5 judgment, set aside Ext.P3 judgment. However, the RTA by Ext.P6 decision observed that since the court in Ext.P5 did not interfere with Ext.P4, there is no need to recall Ext.P4 order. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent preferred WP(C) No.17676 of 2025 challenging Exts. P4 and P6 orders of the RTA. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment, set aside Exts.P4 and P6 orders. In Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed that the official respondents shall not pass any orders on the application preferred by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal before the STAT.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 interlocutory application seeking to consider Ext.P2 application. However, the Tribunal by Ext.P8 judgment dismissed the appeal. The petitioner submits that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order has been dismissed and the interdiction in Ext.P7 judgment is now no more, a direction may be issued to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for replacement on merits.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the

3^rd respondent resisting the averments in the writ petition. Referring to Ext.P7 judgment, the 3^rd respondent submits that the petitioner suppressed material facts before this Court while filing the writ petition leading to Ext.P3 judgment. The 3^rd respondent further submits that Ext.P2 application for replacement submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered on merits since there is no valid permit to be renewed and replaced. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also refers to the decision of this Court in Jaffer v. Usman [2015 (4) KLT 590].

5. Heard Sri.Deepak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

6. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the official respondents not to consider the application of the petitioner for replacement during the pendency of the appeal before the STAT. Since, the said appeal filed against Ext.P1 order of rejection has been dismissed, I do not find any prohibition in the official respondents considering Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent among respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P2 application for replacement submitted by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ