High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the order dismissing a writ petition against a transport permit granted to a respondent, holding that the applicant had an alternate remedy available.
The writ appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937
WA. No.258 of 2016 () IN WP(C). No.12573/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12573/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-01-2016.
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:
IMMANUEL JOSEPH, KUZHITHOTTU HOUSE, CHETHIMATTAM, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686001.
3. BOBBY GEORGE, KANIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM, PALA, PIN-686578.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KRJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A No.258 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, CJ
Heard.
29.1.2016 by which judgment, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing that petitioner has alternate remedy of revision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the impugned order is not interfered with.
WA.258/16
-:2:-
area. It is submitted that subsequently, the third respondent came to this Court and claimed that he does not intend to extend the service and this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by third respondent and thereafter Ext.P6 order was passed, which was challenged by the petitioner again in this Court by W.P(C) No.54 of 2015 which was disposed of on 12.2.2015. In paragraphs (3) and (4) this Court stated as under:
WA.258/16
-:3:-
route. If modification was not submitted, even then, the RTA could have issued the permit with conditions of more service to Mundakayam. That would have been a condition of the permit, for the operation of which, the permit-holder would be obliged to comply with. The statutory remedies would also have been available against such an order.”
insisting for modification.
-:4:-
WA.258/16
decision to grant permit, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner and we do not find it a case which is covered with exception where this Court may entertain the writ petition, despite the availability of alternate remedy.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal is dismissed. We only observe that if the appellant avails the alternate remedy, it shall be decided in accordance with law.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE
krj.15/2/16
//true copy// P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the availability of alternate remedy precludes entertaining the writ petition challenging the permit grant.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition challenging the RTA's permit.
Immanuel Joseph
The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam
Bobby George
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
