The petitioner, a stage carriage operator who was operating on the route Cheeppunkal-Ernakulam on the strength of Ext.P1 permit till 21.06.2014 has submitted Ext.P5 application for temporary permit to conduct services on the very same route. The petitioner has not submitted his application for renewal of the regular permit, within the stipulated time. Therefore, he has sought for the grant of a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that, the petitioner's application has not been considered for the reason that, there is considerable overlapping upon a notified route. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.I.Dinesh Menon responds to the above contention by pointing out that the petitioner's route is the same, over which he has been conducting regular services on the strength of Ext.P1 till 21.06.2014 and that, he has sought for the issue of a temporary permit only in the vacancy of his regular service. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no justification for not considering Ext.P5.
3. Heard. Since Ext.P5 application is submitted under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider whether there is a temporary need in existence and to pass necessary orders W.P.(C)No.15575 of 2014 2 on the application, without delay. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner had been conducting regular service on the route on the strength of Ext.P1 till 21.06.2014. It is only for the reason that he had not submitted his application for renewal within time that he has submitted Ext.P5.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 application for temporary permit and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of ten days of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV