Disposed

Abdul Gafoor v. Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC19 Dec 2012WP(C)/30566/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to accept applications from autorikshaw owners for varying their contract carriage permits to include new halting places in Sulthan Bathery town. The Court directed the first respondent to accept the applications if submitted within three weeks and to place them before the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent was directed to accept the petitioners' applications for varying permits if submitted within three weeks and to place them before the Regional Transport Authority in the next meet

Abdul Gafoor Vs Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/28TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 30566 of 2012 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 31 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM, PALLIKANDY HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶8

2. MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 27 YEARS S/O MAMMU, MANIKATH HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶9

3. SAINABHA K., AGED 47 YEARS D/O AYSHA, KALARICKAL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶10

4. KHALID M., AGED 44 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED MOORKEN HOUSE, BEENACHI P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶11

5. THANSEER M., AGED 25 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM MACHINGAL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶12

6. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM CHEMBATTICHALIL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶13

7. JAFFER C.A., AGED 31 YEARS S/O. ALI CHEMBATTICHALIL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶14

8. PRASANTH K.S., AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SIVAN KOLOOTHODI HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶15

9. NOUFAL M., AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SAIBABHA VANINJAM THODI HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶16

10. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KUNJIRAMAN AMBADI HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶17

11. SHAMEER, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. AYSHA CHEMBATTICHALIL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶18

12. GAFOOR M., AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MAMU MANJORAMMEL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶19

13. ASHRAF K.K., AGED 30 YEARS S/O. HUSSAIN KALLIKKOODATTIL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. , VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY

¶20

14. RASAK, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY KONDARATH HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶21

15. SREEHARSHAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KONARANKUTTY ARAMKINIYIL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY

¶22

16. SALEEM K., AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ALAVI KONIKEL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶23

17. MUHAMMED MUSTAFA K., AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KHADAR KANDATHIL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶24

18. SHABIR V.P., AGED 26 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RASHEED VALUPOYEL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶25

19. ABDUL SALAM C, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER CHANTHAMPORAM HOUSE

¶26

20. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR THOOVAKUNNUMMEL HOUSE PAZUPATHUR P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶27

21. ASHOKAN M. S/O RAMAN, MADATHIL HOUSE POOMULLA P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY

¶28

22. SHAMEER K., S/O. IBRAHIM KAMATH HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶29

23. ASSAIN K., S/O. LATE MUHAMMED RAHMAMATH HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶30

24. ASHRAF K., AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KHADER KANDATHIL HOUSE PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY

¶31

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

¶32

RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 114

¶34

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 673 114

¶35

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

DCS

¶38

WP(C).No. 30566 of 2012 (U)

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶41

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF REPLY IS GIVEN UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 20.7.2012 BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶42

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 4509/2012

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶48

W.P.(C).No.30566 Of 2012

¶49

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2012.

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the respondent to accept the applications for varying the contract carriage permit already granted to petitioners for plying autorikshaws in the Sulthan Bathery town, and to allow such application, varying the permit already granted to them showing the place of halt at appropriate locations in the Sulthan Bathery town itself and for other reliefs.

¶52

The petitioners are owners of autorikshaws and are holders of valid contract carriage permits. The petitioners wanted to vary their halting place in the permits to different locations in the Sulthan Bathery town of Sulthan Bathery Panchayath. It is submitted that the petitioners have approached the respondents on various occasions seeking variation in their contract carriage permit. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to make applications for varying the permits already granted to them, seeking a halting place in the Sulthan Bathery town and the respondents are bound to consider their applications

¶53

::2::

¶54

W.P.(C).No.30566 Of 2012

¶55

notwithstanding the fact that they have taken a decision long back in the year 1998 to impose restriction in granting contract carriage permit in the town. It is also pointed out that the Sulthan Bathery town since has grown in terms of area and population and that the town requires more number of Autorikshaws for facilitating commutation for the general public who reach the town for various purposes. It is submitted that the

¶56

grant of new permits either by varying the permits already granted or issuing fresh permits will serve the public interest.

¶57

In the aforesaid circumstances, the reliefs are sought for varying contract carriage permits granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to accept the applications in the event of the petitioners submitting the applications for varying the permit within a period of three weeks. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to place the applications before the 2^nd respondent in the next meeting of Regional Transport Authority.

¶58

SD/HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶59

DCS

Abdul Gafoor v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gafoor v. Regional Transport Officer

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

V.C. Sivadas Vs Secretary

P T Aniyankunju Vs the Secretary, R T a Kottayam

M.Gokuldas Vs Secretary

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth Vs P.Perachan and Others

Venkatesan.L Vs Secretary

Venkatesan.L. Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority