Disposed

Binzin Jose v. the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

Kerala HC23 Jun 2014WP(C)/13312/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, sought endorsement of a regular permit transfer allowed by an order (Ext.P6) but not yet executed. The court directed the second respondent to hear the petitioner and the original permit holder regarding objections, comply with the order's conditions, and conclude the transfer within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directs second respondent to hear petitioner and original permit holder, comply with conditions in Ext.P6, and complete transfer endorsement within one month.

Binzin Jose Vs the Regional Transport Authority… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/2ND ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 13312 of 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINZIN JOSE CHALLISSERY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS ROAD EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD PIN -678 001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

BY ADV.G.GOPAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 13312 of 2014 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/07/2012 IN W.P(C) 16463/2012. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28/11/2012.

¶19

EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/01/2013 IN MVAA NO. 460/2012.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DATED 20/10/2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18/03/2013.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL 45 C 6060. EXHIBIT-P8: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 26/04/2014.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : N I L

¶25

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶30

W.P.C. No.13312 of 2014

¶31

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. His complaint is that, though transfer of a regular permit to his name has been allowed by Ext.P6, the transfer has not been endorsed on his permit so far.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submit that the petitioner has not complied with the two conditions subject to which Ext.P6 has been issued.

¶35

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the second condition has been complied with and an NOC from the financing company has been produced, which is Ext.P7. The contention of the Government Pleader is that, the permit holder has submitted an objection. Therefore, without complying with the first condition in Ext.P6, the transfer cannot be endorsed.

¶36

Heard. In view of the fact that transfer of permit has

¶37

W.P.C No. 13312 /2014

¶38

¶39

been allowed subject to the two conditions stipulated in Ext.P6, the petitioner has to comply with both the conditions. According to the petitioner, by producing Ext.P7, the second condition has been complied with. Therefore, he shall comply with the first condition also. For this purpose, the second respondent shall call the original permit holder also and conduct a hearing on the objections. After considering his objections, appropriate action shall be initiated finalising the proceedings for transfer.

¶40

This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the second respondent to hear the petitioner as well as the original permit holder and to give effect to Ext.P6. The exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶43

Binzin Jose v. the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binzin Jose v. the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

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

K.C.Babykutty Vs Nagaraj

Moosa Keloth Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Abdul Salim C. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.Abdul Azeez Vs a.Gopalakrishnan

Gopalakrishnan P.N. Vs the Board of Directors of the Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Johnson Vs the Secretary, R.T.a., Ernakulam