The Court set aside the order granting relief for future applications only, holding that the same application could not be rejected again merely due to a prior notification-based rejection. It directed reconsideration if a fresh application is filed.
Set aside the previous order granting relief only for future applications; inviting fresh application if filed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2006 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1928
WP(C).No. 21543 of 2006(H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
M.K. KARUNAKARAN, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, P.O. PARAPPUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.
2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.
3. P.S. SARIN,
PALLATHERY HOUSE, MOOLAMKUDAM, P.O. MATTATHURKUNNU KODAKARA, THRISSUR.
4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
SMT.D.RENU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO. 21543/2006
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE TRA THRISSUR HELD ON 19.10.2005. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVAA NO.732/05 DATED 18/05/2005. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/06/2006. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 21543 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
By Exhibit P1, the temporary application submitted by the 3rd respondent was rejected on the ground that it is a notified area. On appeal, the appellate authority directed future application to be considered on merit untramelled by the observations in the order impugned in the appeal. In other words, merely because an earlier application is rejected on the ground that it is a notified area and a decision was already rendered thereon by itself, may not be a good reason to reject the subsequent application. But in this case, the very same application was said to be reconsidered. The relief granted by Exhibit P2 was only for future application and not for consideration of the application already made which became final after Exhibit P1 and at any rate after Exhibit P2.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent application for a permit can be rejected merely because a prior application was rejected on the ground of a notified area.
Whether the appellate authority's order directing future applications to be considered on merit also applied to the already filed application.
M.K. KARUNAKARAN
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
P.S. SARIN
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
P.R.RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
