Disposed

P.I.Prabhakaran v. the R.T.a., Ernakulam

Kerala HC15 Oct 2008WP(C)/18400/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Justice V.Giri held that the Secretary of RTA Thrissur lacked jurisdiction to alter a permit condition issued by RTA Ernakulam. The court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to apply for variation of the permit to the competent authority, RTA Ernakulam, within one week, establis</u>hed a timeline for the authority to decide after notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to seek variation of Ex.P1 permit under Section 80(3) Motor Vehicles Act from RTA, Ernakulam by filing application within a week; authority to decide within one month.

P.I.Prabhakaran Vs the R.T.a., Ernakulam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 18400 of 2008(M)

PETITIONER(S):

K.I.PRABAKARAN, S/O.ITTACHI, AGED 68 YEARS, KURIAKKAT HOUSE, P.O.PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADDL.R3

¶16

SANDHYA RAJU, W/O RAJU FRANCIS, KOKKAT HOUSE,

¶17

AVITTATHUR P.O., IRINJALAKUDA. (Impleaded as per Order dated 18.7.2008 in I.A.8202/2008)

¶18

ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR ADDL.R3 &4

¶19

SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN FOR ADDL.R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1&R2 SUDHA DEVI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

V.GIRI, J

¶22

W.P.(C).18400/2008

¶23

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2008

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner is a regular stage carriage operator operating on the route Chottanikkara - Thrissur. Ext.P1 permit was issued on 16.5.2001 and a condition has been imposed thereon that the vehicle should not touch Irinjalakuda Bus Stand. Said condition forms part of the permit. By Ext.P2 dated 22.6.2007, the same was renewed subject to the continuance of the same condition.

¶26

Petitioner has a case that at the time of Ext.P2, he did not know that a decision had been taken by the RTA, Thrisur, as early as in the year 1999, as part of the traffic regulations, that the vehicles touching Irinjalakuda will also touch the Bus Stand. In the circumstances, pointing out Ext.P5, petitioner made a request to the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur, for the deletion of the endorsement in the permit that the vehicle should not touch Irinjalakuda Bus Stand. This

¶27

W.P.(C).18400/2008

¶28

¶29

was accepted by the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur, on 10.6.2008. It seems that the some other stage carriage operators pointed out that a condition in the permit issued by the RTA, Ernakulam, cannot be tinkered with by the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur. By Ext.P6 dated 10.6.2008, endorsement effected under Ext.P5 was cancelled. Same has been challenged in this writ petition.

¶30

An Association of stage carriage operators had got themselves impleaded in the writ petition.

¶31

I heard Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel Mr.P.Raveendran appearing for the additional respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. I am not inclined to accept the challenge against Ext.P6 in as much as that the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur, obviously did not have the jurisdiction to alter a condition in the permit issued by the RTA, Ernakulam. But there is force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a decision taken by the RTA, Thrissur, in the nature of Ext.P4, and a subsequent decision taken by the same

¶32

W.P.(C).18400/2008

¶33

¶34

Authority as per Ext.P10, would carry considerable persuasive force, in the petitioner prosecuting a request for variation of the conditions in the permit. But this obviously can be done only by the authority which issued the permit on a application under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶35

In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to seek a variation of Ext.P1 permit as renewed under Ext.P2. If the application is filed within a week from today, it shall be considered and a decision taken by the RTA, Ernakulam, within one month from the date of receipt of the application, after notice to the petitioner as also the additional third respondent.

¶36

V.GIRI, Judge

¶37

mrcs

P.I.Prabhakaran v. the R.T.a., Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.I.Prabhakaran v. the R.T.a., Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

District Collector, Tvm. Vs Sarojini Amma

N.S.S.Training College Vs N.C.T.E

Sreelal Devraj Vs Kerala State Film Devlopment Corporation

E.K.Sivadasan Vs the Manager, Kerala Financial Cor

Suhrabi Vs Secretary, the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode

Visalakshmi Amma Vs the Geologist, Dept. of Mining & Geology