Disposed

Seema Vinod v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authroity

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016WP(C)/1856/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition involved a challenge by a permit holder regarding the renewal of a regular permit. TheHigh Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider an application for a reissued temporary permit to be granted for an additional two months. This order was made to provide the petitioner sufficient time to clear dues with a financier and obtain the necessary NOC befo

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for a reissued temporary permit for two months. The writ petition is disposed of.

Seema Vinod Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1856 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SEEMA VINOD AGED 40 YEARS W/O.LATE M.R.VINOD, SYAMALAYAM, EZHUPUNNA CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶11

R BY ADV.K.A.SANJEETHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 1856 of 2016 (F)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXT.P1.COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 14/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXT.P2.COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT EXT.P3.COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17/8/2015. EXT.P4.COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 14/12/2015. EXT.P5.COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 11/1/2016.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

--------------------------------------NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SKS

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶23

¶24

W.P (C) No.1856 of 2016

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ext.P3 proceedings of the Regional Transport

¶29

Authority adjourning application for renewal of regular permit

¶30

inter alia reads as follows:

¶31

“2. This is an application for renewal of regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL-17-A-6056 operating on the route Chittoor Ferry-Arookkutty as ordinary moffusil service. The vehicle is under HPA and NOC for the financier, a mandatory requirement U/S 51 of MV Act 1988 has not produced even at the sitting of this authority. Four check reports are pending against the vehicle. Hence this authority felt that the possessor is not able to maintain a stage carriage service. Hence the permit is liable to be revoked. Any how, considering the request of the applicant, a period of 60 days is sanctioned to the applicant to produce current records of the vehicle and NOC from the financier. Hence decision on application for the renewal of permit is adjourned.

¶32

Secretary, RTA is directed to issue temporary permit for a duration of two months to the possessor of the vehicle. Thereafter no permits shall be allowed to the applicant without concurrence of this authority”.

¶33

¶34

¶35

The petitioner seeks one more opportunity to clear

¶36

the dues of the financier and produce the NOC. This is to facilitate the renewal of the regular permit applied for. Ext.P4 temporary permit issued to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 proceedings expires on 23.1.2016. The petitioner has filed Ext.P5 application for reissue of temporary permit.

¶37

I direct the respondent to consider Ext.P5 application for reissue of temporary permit finally for two months. Thus the period fixed in Ext.P3 proceedings is further extended by two months. This is up to the petitioner to clear the dues of the financier and obtain the NOC. The proceedings for

¶38

renewal of the regular permit shall be taken to a logical end.

¶39

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶40

V.CHITAMBARESH, sks Judge.

Seema Vinod v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authroity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Vinod v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authroity

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

Parvathy Vs Guruvayoor Municipality

Vinod @ Vinodkumar Vs T.P.Krishnankutty and Others

P.J.Jacob Vs Shihabudhin

The Vicar, St.Lazar'S Church Vs the Transport Commissioner

Prasobh P.Kumar Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Safeer K. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority