The petitioner challenged the concurrent permit renewal of a route operated under a license, stating five years elapsed. The court held the petition infructuous, ordered its closure, allowed future challenges to renewal, and kept all contentions open.
Dismissed the petition as infructuous and kept all contentions open for future considerations regarding permit renewal.
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 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2007 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1928
OP.No. 7236 of 2002(J)
------------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
KSRTC REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY.
2. SRI.K.SURESH BABU, THEKKEKARA PUTHENVEEDU, CHINDRAVALLAPPEROOR, KILIMANOOR.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CMP. NO.12836/2002 IN OP. 7236/2002
DISMISSED
12.03.2007 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE TRIVANDRUM – TRIVANDRUM CIRCULAR SCHEME. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.202 /01 DT.10.10.01. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ENDT. NO.C2-11482/2000/Q DT.6.4.01.
/TRUE COPY/
tss
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
O.P. NO. 7236 OF 2002-J
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges the order of the 1st respondent granting concurrence for the renewal of a permit on the route Kottiyam – Karatte, operated by the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner did not challenge the renewal of the permit by the original authority, the permit was already issued and the 2nd respondent was operating throughout. Now, almost five years are over. In view of the above position, the O.P has become practically infructuous. Accordingly, the Original Petition is closed. If the permit is renewed, the petitioner will be free to challenge the same. All its contentions are kept open.
12th March, 2007.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
Nm/
2
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,J.
-----------------------------------O.P.NO.7236/2002 – J
JUDGMENT
12.3.2007.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant relief in an infructuous petition challenging permit renewal already operated for five years.
Whether to maintain the contestability of future renewal against the petitioner.
Whether to keep the petitioner's contentions open for future adjudication.
KSRTC Rep.by its Managing Director
The Regional Transport Authority, Kollam
K.Suresh Babu
K.Balakrishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
