Allowed

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority v. Aneesh Kumar

Kerala HC13 Mar 2015RP/155/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The review petition allowed recalling a previous judgment regarding vehicle replacement and dismissing the original writ petition due to the petitioner's unclean hands for failing to reveal facts about permissive clearance and delayed replacement. A fresh renewal petition was disposed of with a direction for simultaneous consideration of revocation and renewal by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; original writ petition dismissed; fresh writ petition disposed of with direction for RTA to consider revocation and renewal jointly.

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Vs Aneesh Kumar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/22ND PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 155 of 2015 () IN WP(C).1531/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1531/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15.01.2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):

¶8

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR

¶9

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

ANEESH KUMAR C.V, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, PRANAVAM, KUDUKKIMOTTA, P.O, KANHIRODE KANNUR DISTRICT

¶12

R BY SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2015, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 7485 OF 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RP.No. 155 of 2015 () IN WP(C).1531/2015

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶17

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.C2/789996/14/C DATED 28.11.2014.

¶18

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A to Judge

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶23

===================== R.P. No.155 of 2015 - N in W.P.(C) No.1531 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 7485 of 2015 - I

¶24

====================== Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2015

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The review petition is filed by the State against the judgment of this Court, which directed consideration of the replacement of a vehicle, in a regular permit. The petitioner in the writ petition made an innocuous prayer for consideration of the replacement of a vehicle on the allegation that, the Secretary, RTA, refused to consider the same only on the ground of the vehicle proffered being of a later model. This Court following the binding precedents, directed consideration.

¶27

The review has been filed by the State on the ground that, the petitioner in the writ petition had approached the Tribunal for obtaining a Clearance Certificate with respect to the vehicle originally endorsed in the permit; keeping the permit in suspended animation.

¶28

R.P. No.155 of 2015 - N in W.P.(C) No.1531 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 7485 of 2015 - I 2

¶29

The Tribunal, by order dated 08.10.2012, directed issuance of Clearance Certificate. The petitioner approached the authority much later with the Tribunal's order and a Clearance Certificate was issued on 17.08.2013. It is to be noticed that, the Tribunal specifically had indicated that, the petitioner should replace the vehicle within four months.

¶30

In any event, since Clearance Certificate was granted on 17.08.2013, the petitioner was obliged to replace the vehicle by 16.02.2014. Obviously the petitioner did not do that. On 28.11.2014, the RTA issued show cause notice as to why the permit should not be revoked. This Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. The petitioner has failed to reveal any of the aforesaid facts in the writ petition. The petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs granted by this Court. The fact that replacement is allowed will be of no consequence.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 7485 of 2015 is a fresh writ

¶32

¶33

R.P. No.155 of 2015 - N in W.P.(C) No.1531 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 7485 of 2015 - I

¶34

petition filed by the petitioner obviously on coming to know of the review, stating the facts as stated herein above. The petitioner seeks for consideration of an application for renewal of permit produced at Ext.P5.

¶35

It is evident that, the show cause notice itself was issued by the authority on 28.11.2014. The petitioner not only did not respond to the show cause notice, but the permit itself stood expired on 01.03.2015. The revocation of the permit is said to have been placed before the RTA on 11.02.2015. However, the same was not considered. In such circumstance, the revocation as also the renewal application would have to be considered by the RTA simultaneously, which shall be considered expeditiously.

¶36

On the facts disclosed herein, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to grant any further temporary permit in the route in which, the show-cause notice for revocation as also the renewal application is pending consideration, before the RTA.

¶37

¶38

R.P. No.155 of 2015 - N in W.P.(C) No.1531 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 7485 of 2015 - I

¶39

The review petition is allowed. The judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1531 of 2015 is re-called and the writ petition would stand dismissed. W.P.(C) No.7485 of 2015 would stand disposed of with the above direction.

¶40

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

// true copy //

¶43

P.A to Judge

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority v. Aneesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority v. Aneesh Kumar

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

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs the General Secretary

Nirmala @ Lakshmikutty Vs the New India Assurance Company Limited

The Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Epf Appellate Tribunal & Another

M.Ratheesh Vs C.J.Paulson

N.G.Mathai Vs Alan Joseph

Ibs Software Services Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax