Muhammed Shafi Tholakara House, Erumathala P.O., Aluva v Regional Transport Authority Ernakulam and Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 13506 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** # **MUHAMMED SHAFI THOLAKARA HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O, ALUVA.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON 16.08.2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -2- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** **------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018** **------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 16[th] DAY OF AUGUST, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who was granted a regular permit on the route Kizhakkambalam-Aluva-Perumbavoor, vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority dated 17.08.2015, is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 23.03.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority and Ext.P5 decision dated 23.09.2017 of the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to forthwith issue the regular permit granted vide Ext.P1 proceedings, in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 28.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017, untramelled by Ext.P5 decision of the 1[st] respondent dated 23.09.2017. 2. On 13.04.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. On 28.05.2018, a statement has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 02.06.2018. W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -3- In view of the averments contained in the reply affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 07.06.2018, (wrongly described as reply affidavit). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 17.08.2015 of the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, the petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route Kizhakkambalam-AluvaPerumbavoor, subject to production of a suitable stage carriage not older than five years from the date of its registration, and subject to settlement of timings in accordance with order No.D3/875/2005/ STA dated 08.11.2011. The grant of permit vide Ext.P1 proceedings was made subject to production of current records of the vehicle within the time limit stipulated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for brevity 'KMV Rules'). 5. The condition imposed in Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent that, the permit is granted to a suitable stage carriage not older than five years from the date of its registration, was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.36400 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. By a common judgment dated 15.12.2016 in a batch of writ petitions, this Court directed the State Transport Authority to W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -4- take a final decision in the matter. Pursuant to that judgment, the State Transport Authority, by Ext.P2 order dated 14.06.2017, fixed the age limit of stage carriage for grant of fresh regular permits as eight years from the date of original registration, instead of five years. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority by filing W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017. In the said writ petition, which was admitted on 26.07.2017, this Court granted Ext.P7 interim order dated 26.07.2017 directing the statutory authority to consider the application for reissue of temporary permit, within one week, untramelled by the prescription contained in Ext.P2 order dated 14.06.2017 of the State Transport Authority. The said interim order was granted for a period of two months. 6. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of W.P. (C)No.24657 of 2017, he purchased a 2011 model stage carriage bearing registration KL-57/E-3399. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 28.03.2018, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017 by directing the 2[nd] respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to issue the permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent dated 17.08.2015 for the petitioner's stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-57/E-3399. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court noted that, since the petitioner has offered a W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -5- new vehicle, the challenge made in that writ petition against Ext.P2 decision of the State Transport Authority does not have to be considered. 7. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 23.03.2018, whereby the request made by the petitioner for issuing the permit granted vide Ext.P1 proceedings, for petitioner's new stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/E-3399 stands rejected on the ground that he failed to produce within time, a suitable vehicle of less than eight years old, despite the directions in Ext.P5 order dated 23.09.2017 issued pursuant to Ext.P2 decision of the State Transport Authority. 8. As discernible from Ext.P5 order, in the meeting of the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority held on 23.09.2017 (Item No.61), with notice to the petitioner, he was granted four months' time from 29.03.2017 to produce a stage carriage of less than eight years old. As the petitioner failed to produce a suitable vehicle, on or before 22.01.2018, Ext.P1 proceedings dated 17.08.2015 granting regular permit to the petitioner on the route Kizhakkambalam-Aluva-Perumbavoor was revoked, in terms of Ext.P5 order. 9. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 decision of the 2[nd] W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -6- respondent is one dated 23.03.2018, which is five days prior to Ext.P3 judgment and that, the 2[nd] respondent signed Ext.P4 only on 10.04.2018. The petitioner was communicated with a copy of Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority along with Ext.P4 order dated 23.03.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, the pendency of the writ petitions challenging Ext.P2 decision of the State Transport Authority was also taken note of by the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P5 order. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition, on 12.04.2018, seeking appropriate reliefs. 10. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent, it is contended that, pursuant to Ext.P2 order dated 14.06.2017 of the State Transport Authority fixing the age of the stage carriage for applying and granting fresh ordinary stage carriage permit as eight years, the petitioner was issued with a notice to produce records of a stage carriage not older than eight years, within a period of one month, for availing the grant of regular permit vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent, on the route KizhakkambalamPookkattupady-Aluva-Perumbavoor. Though the said notice was acknowledged, the petitioner failed to respond. Therefore, with prior W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -7- intimation to the petitioner, the matter was considered by the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 23.09.2017, and vide Ext.P5 order of the said respondent (Item No.61), the petitioner was granted four months' time from that date to produce records of a suitable stage carriage not older than eight years. In Ext.P5 order, it was made clear that, if the petitioner fails to produce the vehicle within the said period, the regular permit granted vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent will stand revoked. 11. The 2[nd] respondent would contend that, though Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent was communicated to the petitioner, he failed to offer a suitable stage carriage, on or before 22.01.2018, and therefore, the grant of regular permit vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent stands revoked with effect from 23.01.2018. However, the said fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 28.03.2018, whereby the 2[nd] respondent was directed to issue the regular permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings, for the petitioner's new stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/E-3399. The 2[nd] respondent would contend that, as the grant of regular permit, vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -8- 1[st] respondent, stands already revoked due to non-production of a suitable vehicle within the time limit stipulated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 of the KMV Rules, and the additional time of four months granted by the Regional Transport Authority is also over, the respondents are not in a position to comply with the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment. 12. The 2[nd] respondent would rely on the decisions of this Court in **Seethal v. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur [2003 (3) KLT 357]** and **Joy P.V. v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and others [2015 (3) KLT 555]** , in order to contend that, if current records are not produced within four months from the date of communication of grant of permit by the grantee, then the permit shall stand cancelled without the Regional Transport Authority requiring to cancel it, as that is the necessary consequence of the conditions of permit granted under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 of the KMV Rules. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent, it has also been stated that the respondents have already filed review petition seeking review of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017. 13. In the reply affidavit dated 02.06.2018, the petitioner W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -9- would contend that Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority prescribing age limit for grant of fresh regular permit was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017. The petitioner filed the said writ petition on 25.07.2017, wherein this Court granted Ext.P7 interim order dated 26.07.2017, whereby the statutory authority was directed to consider the application for re-issue of temporary permit within one week, untramelled by the prescriptions contained under Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority. The said interim order was issued for a period of two months. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017, the 1[st] respondent reconsidered the petitioner's application for regular permit, in the light of Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority. On 23.09.2017, the petitioner appeared before the 1[st] respondent, through counsel, and brought to its notice that the issue regarding the enforceability of Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority is pending before this Court, and propriety demands that no decision is taken vis-a-vis the implementation of Ext.P2. Notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition, the 1[st] respondent passed Ext.P5 order granting four months' time from 23.09.2017 for producing a stage carriage, in consonance with Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority. W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -10- 14. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner would reiterate that Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent was never communicated to him, nor he was aware of the same until the filing of the present writ petition, on 12.04.2018. The petitioner would also point out that Ext.P5 order purportedly taken on 23.09.2017, was never brought to the notice of this Court at any time before the disposal of W.P. (C)No.24657 of 2017, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 28.03.2018. Placing reliance on Ext.P8 order dated 02.11.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent, whereby the temporary permit granted to the petitioner on the route in question, in respect of his old stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AS-3592 was cancelled, taking note of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.30359 of 2017 deprecating the issuance of successive temporary permits, the petitioner would contend that vide Ext.P8 order of the 2[nd] respondent, he was informed that, it is open to him to offer a suitable vehicle not later than eight years and obtain regular permit. 15. In view of the averments contained in the reply affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit (wrongly described as reply affidavit), wherein it has been stated that, Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent dated 23.09.2017, along with a copy of W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -11- Ext.P8 order of the 2[nd] respondent dated 02.11.2017 cancelling the temporary permit granted to the petitioner, which was valid till 09.12.2017, was communicated to the petitioner on 04.11.2017, from the office of the 2[nd] respondent, with acknowledgment due, in a single cover. In order to substantiate the said contention, a copy of Ext.P5 order dated 23.09.2017 showing the despatch date as 04.11.2017 and also the acknowledgment card showing the postal date as 09.11.2017 with an endorsement “Item No.61 and cancellation proceedings of temporary permit of vehicle KL-07/AS3592” are produced as Exts.R2(a) and R2(b). The 2[nd] respondent would point out that, in W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017 no counter affidavit was filed and Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent was also not brought to the notice of this Court, at the time of disposal of that writ petition by Ext.P3 judgment. The 2[nd] respondent would also point out that, the last part of Ext.P8 order dated 02.11.2017 cancelling the temporary permit granted to the petitioner, gives him an opportunity to produce a vehicle not later than eight years and obtain a regular permit, by filing an application. Ext.P8 order was issued in pursuance of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2017 in W.P.(C)No.30359 of 2017, whereby the Regional Transport Authorities were interdicted from issuing W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -12- successive temporary permits, without considering any temporary need, as contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. What is stated in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner can file a fresh application for the grant of regular permit by offering a suitable stage carriage not later than eight years old. 16. Rule 159 of the KMV Rules deals with time for entry of registration marks in permits. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 159, no permit shall be issued before entering the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 provides that, when the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for permit, owing to the fact that he is not on that date in possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Transport Authority or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority so that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -13- application. Going by sub-rule (3) of Rule 159, the power vested in a Transport Authority under sub-rule (2) shall also be exercised by its delegatee in respect of orders passed under the delegated powers. ## 17. In **Seethal v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur** **[2003 (3) KLT 357]** , in the context of sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 of the KMV Rules, this Court held as follows; “(1) The grant of permit containing a general condition that the current records of the vehicle should be produced within one month will lead to automatic cancellation of permit, if current records are not produced or grantee does not make an application for extension of time up to the maximum period of three months within one month from the receipt of proceedings granting permit. (2) If an application for extension of time for production of current records is made and if the Regional Transport Authority has granted an order extending the time, then the extended period shall stand substituted for the period provided for production of current records mentioned as a general condition in the grant of permit. Since the Regional Transport Authority is vested with statutory power, and if it does not reject it, then of course it should be assumed that the extension applied for is granted. Therefore, unless rejected, the time applied for by the petitioner up to a maximum period of four months including the one month granted as a general condition in the grant of permit shall form part of the permit granted. W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -14- (3) If current records are not produced within four months from the date of communication of grant of permit by the grantee, then the permit shall stand cancelled without the Regional Transport Authority requiring to cancel it as that is the necessary consequence of the operation of the condition of permit granted under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 159 of the KMV Rules.” 18. After referring to the aforesaid three conclusions recorded by the Learned Single Judge in **Seethal's case (supra)** , a Division Bench of this Court, in **Joy P.V. v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and others [2015 (3) KLT 555]** , held as follows; “16. Learned Single Judge while interpreting Rule 159(2) has recorded his three conclusions as extracted above. Learned Single Judge in his first conclusion has observed that the grant of permit containing a general condition that the current records of the vehicle should be produced within one month will lead to automatic cancellation of permit, if current records are not produced or grantee does not make an application for extension of time up to the maximum period of three months within one month of proceedings granting permit. Learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion has referred to the general condition. There may be general condition as referred to by the learned Single Judge in the above case. But, in the present case, the general condition does not refer to any automatic cancellation. Hence conclusion (1) at best W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -15- can be held to be based on the general condition of that case and cannot be general interpretation of Rule 159(2). As observed above, Rule 159(2) does not indicate that there is any automatic revocation of the sanction in event applicant does not furnish the details of the vehicle within one month. As observed above, in event an applicant does not furnish the details of the vehicle within one month, there is a power with the RTA to revoke the sanction. Thus, as far as conclusion Nos.(2) and (3) are concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the provisions of Rule 159(2). We are of the view that conclusion No.(1) as recorded in para 4 cannot be held to be true and correct interpretation of Rule 159(2) and the said interpretation may be on the facts of the case, which was being considered by the learned Single Judge and can have no application in all cases.” 19. In the instant case, on 23.09.2017 the 1[st] respondent reconsidered the petitioner's application for regular permit, in the light of Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority, with notice to the petitioner. Pursuant to a notice dated 02.08.2017 issued by the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner entered appearance through counsel on 23.09.2017 and the said fact is not in dispute. Taking note of the fact that issuance of regular permit pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings dated 17.08.2015 was pending for more than two years due to nonproduction of current records of a suitable vehicle not older than eight years, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P5 order (Item No.61) W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -16- granting the petitioner four months' time from 23.09.2017 for producing a stage carriage, in consonance with Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority. A copy of the said order was communicated to the petitioner pursuant to Endt.No.G/78636/ 2015/E dated 03.11.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent. On 03.11.2017 itself, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P8 order dated 02.11.2017, whereby the temporary permit granted to the petitioner on the route in question, in respect of his old stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AS-3592 was cancelled, taking note of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.30359 of 2017 deprecating the issuance of successive temporary permits. 20. According to the petitioner, he was served with a copy of Ext.P5 order of the 1[st] respondent along with Ext.P4 order dated 23.03.2018. By Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent, the request dated 17.03.2018 of the petitioner to issue the regular permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent, to his 2012 model state carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/E-3399 stands rejected, on the ground that, due to non-production of current records of a suitable vehicle not older than eight years Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent stands revoked with effect from 23.01.2018. Though Ext.P4 order is dated 23.03.2018, the 2[nd] W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -17- respondent issued that order only on 10.04.2018. 21. The respondents would contend that Ext.P5 order dated 23.09.2017 of the 1[st] respondent was communicated to the petitioner on 04.11.2017, along with Ext.P8 order dated 02.11.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent. As borne out from Ext.P8 order, the temporary permit granted to the petitioner, which was valid till 09.12.2017, stands cancelled, taking note of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.30359 of 2017 deprecating the issuance of successive temporary permits. The fact that a copy of Ext.P8 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent on 03.11.2017 was served on the petitioner is not in dispute. As per the endorsement made on Ext.P5 order (Item No.61), a copy of the same was communicated to the petitioner pursuant to Endt.No.G/78636/2015/E dated 03.11.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent. A copy of Ext.P5 order dated 23.09.2017 of the 1[st] respondent showing the despatch date as 04.11.2017 and also the acknowledgment card showing the postal date as 09.11.2017 with an endorsement “Item No.61 and cancellation proceedings of temporary permit of vehicle KL-07/AS-3592” are placed on record as Exts.R2(a) and R2(b). As borne out from the documents marked as Exts.R2(a) and R2(b), the petitioner was communicated with a copy of Ext.P5 order, along with Ext.P8 order. W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -18- Therefore, the 2[nd] respondent cannot be found fault with in issuing Ext.P4 order dated 23.03.2018, rejecting the request made by the petitioner to issue the regular permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent, to his 2012 model state carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/E-3399, since Ext.P1 proceedings stand revoked due to non-production of current records of a suitable stage carriage. 22. On 25.07.2017, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.24657 of 2017 challenging Ext.P2 order dated 14.06.2017 of the State Transport Authority. In that writ petition, this Court granted an interim order on 26.07.2017, whereby the statutory authority was directed to consider the application for reissue of temporary permit within one week, untrammeled by the prescriptions contained in Ext.P2 order of the State Transport Authority. The said interim order, which was valid for a period of two months, was extended by two months on 26.09.2017. Thereafter, the said interim order was never extended and the writ petition was disposed of on 28.03.2018 by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue the permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent dated 17.08.2015 for the petitioner's stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-57/E-3399. The respondents filed R.P.No.462 of W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -19- 2018 seeking review of Ext.P3 judgment on the ground that, the fact that Ext.P1 grant of regular permit stands revoked by Ext.P5 order could not be brought to the notice of this Court. Accordingly, be order dated 11.07.2018, this Court allowed R.P.No.462 of 2018 by recalling Ext.P3 judgment. 23. As borne out from Ext.P8 order, the 2[nd] respondent issued the said order on 03.11.2017 and on the very same day, the 2[nd] respondent made an endorsement on Ext.P5 order to communicate the same to the petitioner through registered post with acknowledgment due. The despatch date shown in Ext.R2(a), which is a copy of Ext.P5, is 04.11.2017, and Ext.R2(b) acknowledgment card shows the postal date as 09.11.2017 with an endorsement “Item No.61 and cancellation proceedings of temporary permit of vehicle KL-07/AS-3592”. After referring to Rule 124 of the KMV Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that what is contemplated under Rule 124 is service of a single order in an envelope. A reading of the said provisions would show that, as per Rule 124, any communication referred to in subrule (1) may be served by the executive officers of the Transport Authorities or by any officer authorised by them in this behalf, by any one of the methods enumerated in clause (a) to (c). The term W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -20- 'the communication' used in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) or in the proviso to the said sub-rule would indicate any such restriction. 24. The 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P8 order dated 02.11.2017 in pursuance of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2017 in W.P.(C)No.30359 of 2017, whereby the Regional Transport Authorities were interdicted from issuing successive temporary permits, without considering any temporary need, as contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As pointed out by the respondents, the last part of Ext.P8 order gives the petitioner an opportunity to produce a vehicle not later than eight years and obtain a regular permit, by filing an application for regular permit, offering a suitable stage carriage not later than eight years old. 25. For the reasons stated above, no interference is warranted on Exts.P4 and P5 orders and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)No.13506 of 2018 -21- WPC 13506/2018 ## APPENDIX EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.17.8.2015 IN ITEM NO.14. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DT.14.6.2017 IN DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.2. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.28.3.2018 IN WPC.24657/2018. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.23.3.2018. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.23.9.2017. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 28.7.2017. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DT.26.7.2017 IN WPC.24657/2017. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.2.11.2017. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXTS:** EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G/78630/2015E DT.23.9.2017 SHOWING THE DESPATCH DATE AS 4.11.17. EXT.R2(B): ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SHOWING THE POSTAL DATE AS 09.11.2017 WITH SPECIFIC WRITINGS ON THE TOP AS ITEM NO.61 AND CANCELLATION PROCEEDINGS OF TEMPORARY PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE KL 7 AS 3592. ## **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **dsn**