The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of an application for temporary permit for four months.
2. The petitioner, obviously, had a regular permit in the route Punalur - Chittarickal, which the petitioner is said to have surrendered and obtained permitless certificate. However, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for renewal of regular permit before this Court and by judgment in W.P.(C).No.22389 of 2012, this Court set aside the said order and it was directed that concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities [for brevity “RTA”] have to be called for. Exhibit P1 indicates that in compliance with the judgment of this Court, concurrence of sister RTAs have been called for and the application for renewal is pending consideration of the authority.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application for substituting the vehicle in the permit. That was declined by Exhibit P2, for the reason that there is no permit in WP(C).No.26000 of 2014 - 2 -
existence as of now. However, Exhibit P2 also took note of the earlier proceedings and calling for concurrence from the sister RTAs. It is in such circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking consideration of the application for temporary permit.
4. In any event, there is a renewal application pending and concurrence has been called for and the regular permit was held by the petitioner himself. In the context of the petitioner having sought for a temporary permit in the defaulted permit of himself, there would be no impediment in granting the same. The petitioner shall be granted and issued the temporary permit as sought for in Exhibit P3, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is allowed.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )