Petitioner challenged non-issuance of transport permit despite settled timings. Court clarified a related order did not prohibit issuance. Upon hearing that permit was issued post-interim order, court disposed of the petition.
Petition disposed of as permit was issued pursuant to an interim order.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931
WP(C).No. 26714 of 2009(H)
PETITIONER(S):
K.A.SHERIF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABU SALIM, RESIDING AT BAHIHRA MANZIL, ILLICKAL, KILIROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S):
SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 26714/09.
APPENDIX
| PETIT | IONER(S)' | EXHIBITS |
|---|---|---|
| P1. COURT |
COPY OF . |
THE JUDGMENT DTD.21.12.99 IN O.P.No. 30553/99 OF THIS |
| P2. | COPY OF | THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.30.7.09. |
| P3. | COPY OF | THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.17.9.09. |
| P4. | COPY OF | THE NOTICE DTD.17.9.09. |
| P5. | COPY OF | THE JUDGMENT DTD.5.7.96 IN O.P.No. 10599/96. |
| sdk+ | ||
| // | /True copy/// |
P.A. to Judge
S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ==================
W.P(C).No.26714 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite settlement of timings in respect of the permit granted in favour of the petitioner, the permit is not being issued in view of my order in W.P. (C).No.28913/2009. On 16.10.2009, I passed the following interim order in this writ petition:
'The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although permit has been granted and timings have been settled, permit is not being issued in view of an order in W.P.(C).No.28913/2009. The petitioner has produced a copy of that order before me. That order states like this:
“Notice by speed post. Any order passed would be subject to the result of the Writ petition.”
That order does not prohibit issue of permit to the petitioner at all. It only says that such issue of permit would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Therefore, I make it abundantly clear that the order in W.P.(C). No.28913/2009 would not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent issuing permit to the petitioner, if timings have been settled.
Post along with W.P.(C).No. 28913/2009 on 22.10.2009.”
Today when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order, the permit has been issued. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above interim order.
sdk+
Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of given that the permit has been issued pursuant to the interim order.
K.A.SHERIF
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
