Disposed

Reji Stephen v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC22 Jul 2015WP(C)/4164/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to transport officer to consider contract carriage permit application previously rejected due to lack of No Objection Certificate from financier. Court disposed petition directing officer to consider application after affording opportunity for evidence and hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 application within two weeks after affording petitioner and 2nd respondent opportunity for evidence and hearing.

Reji Stephen Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2015/31ST ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4164 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

REJI STEPHEN, S/O.P.M. STEPHEN, PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE, THENGALI P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN -689 101.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., AREA OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, NOEL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., PIN- 680 030.

¶12

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH. P.J., SMT.SMINI JOSE.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 4164 of 2015 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL ON 03.08.2014.

¶19

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07.10.2014.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 4164 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2015

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for grant of contract carriage permit.

¶30

The petitioner is the registered owner of Mahndra & Mahindra light motor contract carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-27/A-3565, which is having a seating capacity of seven seats. The petitioner alleges that he purchased the said vehicle with financial assistance from the 2^nd respondent; and the vehicle had a contract carriage permit valid up to 03.08.2014. The certificate of fitness expired on 24.11.2014;

¶31

and thereafter, the vehicle could not be operated. After conducting the major repairs, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for regular permit. Along with the application, he had specifically submitted that he had applied for No Objection Certificate from the financier. The petitioner also submitted that an affidavit is support of his contention shall also be produced. The petitioner's grievance is that now, the

¶32

..2..

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 4164 of 2015

¶34

1^st respondent has returned the same stating that due to lack of No Objection Certificate from the financier, the application for fresh regular permit cannot be considered. Hence, this writ petition.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

As the limited prayer in this writ petition is only for

¶37

a direction to consider Ext.P2, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 within a time frame.

¶38

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 after affording the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent an opportunity for producing evidence and an opportunity of being heard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶41

bka/-

Reji Stephen v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Stephen v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.O.Paul Vs Kaiparamba Grama Panchayath

V.P.Philipose Vs Mallapuzhasserry Grama Panchayath

Aminu Vs the Secretary, Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath

Thomas Joseph Vs Jancy Sabu

Syed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Jose P.T. Vs State of Kerala