The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Punalur-Pathanamthitta. The permit was issued in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-3P-6201, which is valid till 24.9.2017. Since the above said vehicle is not mechanically fit, the petitioner obtained clearance certificate by retaining the permit under suspended animation. Thereafter, he purchased another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-3G-9772 and applied for replacement of the vehicle. Exhibit P2 is the application made by the petitioner before the respondent for replacement of the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not considering Exhibit P2 application, on the ground that the vehicle offered for replacement is an older vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking an order directing the respondent to consider Exhibit P2 application for replacement, ignoring the age of the vehicle. The petitioner has also relied on Exhibit P3 judgment of this Court on similar facts. W.P.(C).No.12724/14 -2-
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioner has submitted Exhibit P2 application for replacement of the vehicle, which is still pending consideration before the respondent. The issue whether the request for replacement can be declined on the ground that the vehicle offered is older than the one sought to be replaced has been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 6.12.2013 in W.P. (C)No.3553/2013 and it has been 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 the vehicle, it cannot be extended to merely looking at the model or date of registration of the vehicle. It was relying on the said judgment, this Court issued Exhibit P3 judgment relied on by the petitioner.
In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Exhibit P2 application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle, strictly in accordance with law, without looking into the model of the W.P.(C).No.12724/14 -3-
vehicle, but only considering the viability of the said vehicle to be operated on the route in question. Appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 application shall be passed by the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE