Allowed

Mohammed Aboobacker v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC10 Jul 2012WP(C)/14518/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for consideration of a regular transport permit application, claiming readiness of vehicle is not required at application stage. Court applied precedent holding vehicle production is post-permit and directed authority to consider application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application for a regular permit expeditiously, to be placed before the next meeting.

Mohammed Aboobacker Vs the Regional Transport Authority — 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. 14518 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED ABOOBACKER, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, MANNARATHODI HOUSE, PO ATHAVANAD TIRUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN-676505.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P PADMALAYAN

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C).No. 14518 of 2012 (L)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30-10-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶18

EXHIBIT-P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23-4-2012 VIDE ITEM NO.5.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.

¶24

--------------------------------------------WP(C).No.14518 of 2012

¶25

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

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application for the grant of a regular permit to conduct services on the route Tirur-Tirur circular as an ordinary service. According to the petitioner, the route passes mainly through ill served areas where people are facing serious difficulties due to inadequacy of transport facilities. The petitioner's application has not been considered by the authority for the reason that the petitioner has not offered a ready vehicle. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary for the petitioner to offer a ready vehicle at the time of submitting an application for the grant of a regular permit. According to the counsel, this Court has held that a vehicle needs to be offered at a later point of time, when the current records thereof are

¶28

W.P.(C)No.14518 /2012

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

directed to be produced by the authorities. For the above reason, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P1 application, expeditiously.

¶31

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶32

In view of the dictum in E.P.Alavikutty v. The Regional Transport Authority (2005 (1) KLJ 205 ), it cannot be disputed that the petitioner need produce a vehicle only on being directed to produce the current records thereof, after the grant of permit. It has been held by this Court that it is not necessary for the petitioner to have a ready vehicle at the time of submitting an application for the grant of the permit. The above being the legal position, the 1^st respondent ought to have considered Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner, without adjourning the same.

¶33

This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for the

¶34

W.P.(C)No.14518 /2012

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

grant of a regular permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶37

rate by placing the same before its next meeting.

¶38

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶39

kkj

Mohammed Aboobacker v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Aboobacker v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

N.Krishna Holla Vs Secretary

Ernakulam District Co-Op. Bank Vs State of Kerala