Disposed

R.Mohankumar v. the R.T.a, Malappuram and Another

Kerala HC16 Mar 2010WP(C)/8027/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner held a regular permit operating a specific route and filed for variation to operate as Fast Passeng. He complained of inaction. The High Court ordered the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application for variation within two months of receiving the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the application for variation of the permit as expeditiously as possible and within two months of receipt of the judgment.

R.Mohankumar Vs the R.T.a, Malappuram and Another — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 8027 of 2010(C)

¶6

--------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

R.MOHANKUMAR, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOH KUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.8027 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2010

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit conducting services on the route Thrissur-Kozhikode touching Guruvayur, with stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-08/AN 4797. The regular permit is valid till 17.12.2012. According to the petitioner, his route is having a length of 144 kms. Therefore, as per the rules the petitioner has to operate his service as a Fast Passenger Service. In view of the above, the petitioner has submitted an application for suitable variation of his permit. However, he complains that no orders have been passed thereon till date. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction for an early disposal of his application.

¶21

The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submits that the application submitted by the petitioner would be placed before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, after getting a report from the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector.

¶22

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of

¶23

wpc No.8027/2010 2

¶24

directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for variation of his permit evidenced herein by Ext.P1, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶26

css/

R.Mohankumar v. the R.T.a, Malappuram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mohankumar v. the R.T.a, Malappuram and Another

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

Palani Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societie

Riyasudheen Vs Rta and Another

Dennison Vs Tvm District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Santhosh Vs Rta,Kozhikode

Marykutty Varghese Vs Managing Director

D.Pradeep Vs the Secretary,Regional Transport Authori