Disposed

Mohammed v. Tge Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC11 Jul 2016WP(C)/19391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the continuous issuance of temporary permits to the second respondent, citing prior legal precedents. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's objections during the permit re-issue process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider objections raised by the petitioner while considering the application for re-issue of permit to the second respondent.

Mohammed Vs Tge Regional Transport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2016/20TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19391 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MOHAMMED, S/O ABOOBACKER, H.NO 5/529A, PILANKATTA HOUSE, BADIADKA, P.O, PERDALA, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.HARIS.A, S/O.KUNHAMMED B.M, R/AT4/96/, BEEJANTHADKA HOUSE, PERDALA P.O, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

¶11

KASARAGOD -671 121

¶12

2. ARIF.G, S/.O ANDUNHI, H/209, GUNDILA HOUSE, YETHADKA P.O, KASARAGOD -671 321.

¶13

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 19391 of 2016 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).11476/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 23-03-2016

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.19391 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Continuous issuance of temporary permit to second

¶34

respondent, evident from Exts.P4 and P5 is challenged in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that such issuance of the permit is against law held on by this Court in

¶35

[Usman Vs. RTO] 2015 (4) KLT 95 . Even though, notice is served on the second respondent, there is no appearance.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶37

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and on perusal of pleadings and documents on record, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider objections raised by the petitioner while considering the application for re-issue of permit to the second respondent.

¶38

Writ petition (civil) is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶41

SKK

Mohammed v. Tge Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed v. Tge Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobhana Vs Kerala State Co-Op Employees

Radhamaniyamma Vs Arbitrator/Junior Inspector

Private Bus Operators Association Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad

M/S.Kaikara Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Yousuf Vs Arbitration Cum Special Sale Officer