1. Petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P6 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed Ext.P3 order of revocation of regular permit. Petitioner, admittedly, was the holder of a valid regular permit, in the route Guruvayur-Kodungallur, with statge carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-8/T 7575. The permit was valid till 14.7.2010. Petitioner did not operate service from January, 2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 22.9.2009 upon which the petitioner undertook to renew the service within two months. Petitioner is said to have filed an application for replacement. However, the same could not be considered since, the earlier vehicle was under hire purchase agreement and the petitioner failed to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the financier. Petitioner was unable to obtain such NOC and application was kept pending.
2. Petitioner was then issued with a notice proposing action against the non-operation of the route bus, which offence was compounded by Ext.P2 order. A further period of one week time was granted to resume service in the route. The same, having not been resumed, after five months, on 11.10.2013, by Ext.P3, the permit stood revoked.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even when the revocation was made, the application for replacement was pending. However, that is of no consequence, since, admittedly, the petitioner could not obtain NOC, the production of which alone would facilitate consideration of replacement application. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of revocation, which was rejected by Ext.P6.
4. Petitioner's further contention is that, the authority does not have a case that, any difficulty was caused to the travelling public, by reason of the petitioner having withdrawn the route bus, since, either the petitioner or other persons, had been carrying on service, on the basis of the temporary permit issued by the authority.
5. In this context, it is to be noticed that, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with an application for issuance of temporary permit by MVAA No.119 of 2013, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 16.4.2013 and a temporary permit was directed to be issued as per Ext.P5. Petitioner's contention is based on Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988. Rule 152 refers to the failure to use a transport vehicle in a valid permit and discontinuance of service in such route. The Rule specifically says that the authority would have the power to suspend or cancel the permit after due notice to the permit holder, if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted, for any day, in the case of a stage carriage, unless a reserve bus duly authorised in this behalf was permitted on the route.
6. Petitioner does not have a case that a reserve bus was operating service. Only intermittently the petitioner had operated another stage carriage on temporary permits. Even such operation was not continuous. The petitioner's alternate contention is that, the route was serviced by temporary permits issued to third parties. That would not enable the petitioner to escape the rigour of revocation.
7. The petitioner also would contend that provision for compounding, which is available under Section 86 and Rule 186, has not been taken into consideration.
Learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the compounding provision was invoked once and the petitioner was granted further time to resume service, which was also not complied with by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court cannot find any infirmity in the revocation order or the resultant confirmation by the Tribunal. The writ petition would stand dismissed. Parties to suffer their costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.