High Court of KeralaWP(C)/35630/2015disposed of

Sadhik M. v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-12-014 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35630 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- SADHIK M., FAHAD MANZIL, AKG NAGAR, MURIKAVU, WEST YAKKARA PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT :

------------------------ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD - 678 001.

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 35630 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT. P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF KL - 09 Y 522. EXT. P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 16.11.2015 WITH COVERING LETTER.

EXT. P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.8044/15 DATED 13/3/2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

K. HARILAL, J.

------------------------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No. 35630 of 2015-C ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit, on the route Kalladikode - Kongad. The regular permit is valid till 30/7/2018. The vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-09-Y-522 which is being operated by the petitioner is a 2008 model vehicle having frequent mechanical troubles. Now the petitioner procured a vehicle and applied for replacement by remitting the requisite fees. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent refused to entertain the application for replacement of the vehicle on the ground that the proposed vehicle is lesser in model than that of the outgoing vehicle. According to the petitioner, there is no material difference between the outgoing vehicle

W.P. (C) No. 35630 of 2015 -: 2 :- and the incoming vehicle and hence the petitioner is entitled for replacement as applied for.

2. The right of replacement of the vehicle has been considered by this Court in W.P.(c) No.3553/2013 dated 6/12/2013 and held that though discretion is vested in the respondent under Rule 174(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to assess the merits and demerits of a vehicle, it cannot be extended to merely looking at the model or date of registration of the vehicle.

3. I am of the opinion that in view of the above decision, Ext.P2 application can be entertained and considered on merits. Therefore, the respondent is directed to entertain and consider Ext.P2 application and pass orders at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge