IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937

WP(C).No. 17000 of 2015 (Y)

----------------------------

PETITIONER:

-------------------

BINDU, AGED 29 YEARS,

W/O. MIJU, RESIDING AT THOTTAKATH HOUSE,

MANJUMMEL, UDYOGMANDAL P.O., ELOOR,

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK.

RESPONDENT:

----------------------

THE SECRETARY,

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

ERNAKULAM-682 030.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 16-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 17000 of 2015 (Y)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT VALID TILL 15-03-2016.

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-11-2014 IN

WP(C).NO.29192 OF 2014.

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT

DATED 09-02-2015.

EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-02-2015 IN

WP(C).NO.4633 OF 2015.

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT

DATED 09-04-2015.

EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) 93/2014/TRAN DATED 29-12-2014.

EXHIBIT P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO KL-11/ X 871.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

--------------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No. 17000 of 2015

--------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Ext.P5, by which the petitioner's application for

replacement was rejected, is under challenge.

2.

The petitioner is the holder of a regular stage

carriage permit, which is valid till 15.03.2016. Pursuant

to the directions by this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment,

the vehicle covered by the permit was issued with a

clearance certificate keeping the permit in suspended

animation, which was ordered to be issued subject to the

condition that the petitioner would offer another suitable

vehicle for replacement within a period of four months.

Accordingly, on 09.02.2015, which is within the stipulated

time, an application for replacement was submitted by the

petitioner. As the respondent declined to sanction the

application for replacement for the reason that the

proposed incoming vehicle is older than the outgoing

W.P.(C) No. 17000 of 2015

..2..

vehicle, the petitioner approached this Court; and vide

Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the respondent to

consider the application for replacement considering the

viability only of the proposed incoming vehicle. However,

the application for replacement was again rejected by the

respondent vide Ext.P5 for the reason that the seating

capacity of the proposed incoming vehicle is less than

that of the outgoing vehicle. The petitioner points out

that it is admitted in Ext.P5 that there is no material

difference between the outgoing and incoming vehicles.

Nevertheless, the respondent proceeds to reject the

application on the ground that compliance with GO (P)

93/2014/Tran dated 29.12.2014 is essential. Hence, this

writ petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

4.

As this Court has quashed the amendment

made to Rule 174 vide the aforementioned GO by a

common judgment in WP(C) No.5728/2015, the petitioner

W.P.(C) No. 17000 of 2015

..3..

is entitled to get the relief as sought for. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that the matter requires a

reconsideration.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is

quashed. The respondent is directed to grant permission

to the petitioner for replacement within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

To facilitate an early action, the petitioner shall be at

liberty to produce a copy of this judgment as well as a copy

of this writ petition before respon