Dismissed

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary

Kerala HC10 Jul 2012WP(C)/10877/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the RTA's rejection of a bus driver's vehicle replacement application. The court upheld the rejection under Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules because the proposed replacement vehicle (2003 model) was older than the existing vehicle (2004 model).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there were no grounds to interfere with the rejection of the application.

N.Krishna Holla Vs Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2012/19TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10877 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N.KRISHNA HOLLA, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA HOLLA RESIDING AT NEERALA HOUSE HS NO.459 (14/104) 8 OF MADHUR G.P, ULIYATHADUKKA SHIRIBAGILU P.O KASARAGOD 671124

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶9

SRI.T.K.SASINDRAN SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KASARAGOD 671123

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

kkj

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No.10877of 2012 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.2034/2012 DATED 13.02.2012

¶20

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 10.02.2012 VIDE ORDER NO.C1/224/2012/KSD DATED 05.01.2012

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.

¶26

--------------------------------------------WP(C).No.10877 of 2012

¶27

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2012

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is the owner of a 2004 model vehicle with Regn.No.KL-14-E-2130 conducting services on the route Kambar-Thalappady-Kasaragod-Alampady-Manya. The petitioner wanted to replace the above vehicle with another one. Therefore, he submitted an application for the replacement of his vehicle on 02.01.2012. However, no orders were passed thereon by the respondent. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.2034 of 2012 for the issue of a direction to the respondent to consider his application for replacement expeditiously. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 13.02.2012. As per Ext.P1, the respondent has been directed to consider the petitioner's application and to pass appropriate orders thereon,

¶30

W.P.(C)No. 10877/2012

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy thereof by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even before he had produced Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 order has been passed rejecting his application for replacement.

¶33

Accordingly the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ext.P2 has been passed by the respondent out of animosity for having approached this Court by filing the writ petition. It is also contended that without even waiting for a certified copy of the judgment to be produced, Ext.P2 was passed.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that Ext.P2 has been signed by the respondent on 10.02.2012 whereas Ext.P1 is dated 13.02.2012. Therefore, Ext.P2 was issued prior to the date of Ext.P1. However, since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself, the said fact was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing Ext.P1. At any rate, it is pointed out that

¶35

W.P.(C)No. 10877/2012

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

Ext.P2 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader relies on Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules' for short) to submit that the reasoning in Ext.P2 is justified.

¶38

I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. Rule 174 of the Rules provides that an application for replacement of a vehicle may be rejected, if the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced. Therefore, having considered the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has rejected the same exercising the discretion under Rule 174(2)(C) of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the vehicle offered for replacement by the petitioner is a 2003 model vehicle, while the vehicle presently operated by the petitioner is a 2004 model one. The above being the position, the rejection of the petitioner's application cannot be found fault with.

¶39

W.P.(C)No. 10877/2012

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶43

kkj

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khadeeja Vs Manoj Joshy

T.K.Prabhakaran Vs Asok Kumar Singh

The Government Servants Co-Op.Society LTD.NO.131, Perumbavoor Vs the Director of Public Instructions

V.Geetha Vs Smt.K.v.Valsakumari

Ernakulam District Co-Op. Bank Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Aboobacker Vs the Regional Transport Authority