Allowed

Boby George v. Jolly Thomas

Kerala HC7 Apr 2014RP/246/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed two Review Petitions concerning transport permits on the Palissery-Perumbavoor route. The court held there was no suppression of facts as a Tribunal had set aside the original rejection of the regular permit application. It also allowed the other review regarding permit renewal, citing the petitioner's failure to disclose the 2007 surrender of the vehicle as an abuse

What did the court decide?

Review Petitions allowed; petitioner in one case imposed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be remitted to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.

Boby George Vs Jolly Thomas — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 246 of 2014 (Y)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO. 31596/2013 DATED 19/12/2013

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD PARTY:

¶8

BOBY GEORGE,

¶9

11/211, PARAKKA HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

1. JOLLY THOMAS, PARAKKA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 573.

¶13

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT , ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶16

R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2014 ALONG WITH RP.NO.278/2014,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

RP.NO.246/2014

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEX.A:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT NO.7/2832/2006.
ANNEX.B:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM DD. 30/09/2008.
ANNEX.C:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM DTD. 7/05/2011.
ANNEX.D:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM DTD. 27/09/2012.
ANNEX.E:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM DTD. 16/07/2013.
ANNEX.F:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3/12/2013 IN WPC.NO. 29690/2013.
ANNEX.G:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM DTD. 6/01/2014.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.R1(a):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/05/2009 IN MVAA NO. 650 OF 2008.
EXT.R1(b):	TRUE COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 05/06/2010.
EXT.R1(c):	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TAILL 18/02/2008.
EXT.R1(d):	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 13/06/2010.
EXT.R1(e):	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 13/10/2010.
EXT.R1(f):	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 10/12/2013.
EXT.R1(g):	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 13/12/2013.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶29

=====================

¶30

R.P. No. 246 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.31596 of 2013 & R.P. No. 278 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6736 of 2014

¶31

====================== Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2014

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioners in both the Review Petitions, the subject raised is more or less similar and deals with the permit in the route Palissery-Perumbavoor. The petitioner in the Writ Petition obviously is the same person. The first Writ Petition, W.P(C) No.31596/2013 was filed seeking a consideration of the temporary permit application. The petitioner also stated that, he had filed a regular permit application in the said route as early as 28.04.2007 and had been continued to operate in the route on the strength of the temporary permit issued since 2007.

¶34

The Review Petition is filed on the ground that, in fact the regular permit application filed as on 28.04.2007 was rejected as per Annexure B and hence, there is a suppression of material facts. The petitioner has filed a

¶35

R.P. No. 246 of 2014 & connection case 2

¶36

counter affidavit in both the Review Petition producing Ext.R1(a) by which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had set aside Annexure B and remanded the matter. In such circumstance, the contention of the petitioner is that, the application for regular permit is still pending and there is absolutely no suppression, which can be discerned from the facts urged in the Review Petition. This Court is convinced that, there is no suppression in the present case, and in view of the Tribunal order, there was absolutely nothing wrong in the petition having stated that, the regular permit application is still pending.

¶37

With respect to R.P. No. 278 of 2014, the petitioner had approached this Court claiming that, his renewal application is pending consideration before the RTA. This Court is directed consideration, but however, noticing the delay in approaching this Court did not make any orders as to the time within which the same has been disposed of. The Review Petition has been filed on the ground that, the permit, which is sought to be renewed, was in fact surrendered in 2007. As was noticed earlier, both the Writ

¶38

R.P. No. 246 of 2014 & connection case 3

¶39

Petitions were with respect to the very same route being Palissery-Perumbavoor. The petitioner in the Writ Petition obviously was a person, who had a valid regular permit right from the year 1995. The regular permit had been validated for two five-year tenures after the first date of its expiry. The regular permit was valid till 05.06.2010, however, in view of the certain difficulty of the petitioner with respect to the stage carriage he was operating in the route, the petitioner admittedly surrendered the vehicle some time in 2007. It was after such surrendering that, the petitioner obtained another vehicle and made an application for issuance of regular permit on 28.04.2007, which is referred to in the earlier Writ Petition. But however, when the present Writ Petition was filed, the petitioner's claim was for renewal of the permit, which according to him, had expired on 05.06.2010.

¶40

The Writ Petition proceeds only on the basis that, the permit had expired and a renewal application was filed out of time. The petitioner has clearly abused the process of this Court, since the petitioner had not specifically

¶41

R.P. No. 246 of 2014 & connection case 4

¶42

mentioned in the Writ Petition that, in fact, the vehicle was surrendered in 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though surrendered, it was not canceled. However, this Court is not on technicalities on the context of the petitioner, who was come before this Court without revealing the entire facts.

¶43

In such circumstance, the Review Petitions are allowed. The judgment in W.P(C) No. 6736 of 2014 is re-called and the writ petitioner is imposed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only/-) to be remitted within one month towards the Kerala Legal Services Authority.

¶44

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

Boby George v. Jolly Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boby George v. Jolly Thomas

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

Panangadan Abdul Muneer Vs the Manager

Kunhammad Haji Vs Secretary, Vatakara Co-Op.Agrl.and Rural Development Bank

M/S. Kinship Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Pf Commissioner , Recovery Officer

S.Vinod Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

S.Biju Vs the Employees'Provident Fund

Benny George Vs the Employees Provident Fund Commissionr