Partly allowed

Lijo George v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC30 Aug 2016WP(C)/27373/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a challenge to an order declining a temporary permit application. The High Court, relying on a prior judgment allowing temporary permits for continuous routes, quashed the impugned order and directed the Respondent to reconsider the application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to reconsider application within three weeks.

Lijo George Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/8TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27373 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LIJO GEORGE, ATTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, ETTUMANUR.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶11

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE.M.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

sts

¶14

WP(C).No. 27373 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 11.7.2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION 1974 KLT SN CASE NO.115. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION 1982 KLT 752. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.7.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.8.2016.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶23

W.P.(C)NO.27373 OF 2016

¶24

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2016

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Petitioner, a permit holder in respect of the vehicle No.KL-03L-7607, which is having a validity up to 06.04.2021, has submitted Ext.P2 application seeking temporary permit to operate in continuation of the existing regular permit on the route Kuravilangad to Njeezhoor. The said application was considered by the respondent pursuant to a direction issued by this court in W.P.(C)No.23854/2016 dated 25.07.2016 and declined holding that, “as per the Motor Vehicles Act, there is nothing called a temporary variation or extension of pacca permit” and as per Circular No.25/2002 of Transport Commissioner clearly specified, temporary extension cannot be allowed. It is in this background challenging Ext.P6 order dated 05.08.2016 this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)NO.27373 OF 2016

¶30

learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. The prime contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this court in [ Balakrishana Travels Vs RTO Malappuram, (1982 KHC 181)] and contended that in the said case the issue with respect to the grant of a temporary permit in continuation of a regular permit was considered and held that grant of a separate temporary permit is possible if the routes covered by the two permits are continuous. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that Ext.P6 order passed by the respondent is in accordance with law and there is no provision for grant of a temporary extension under the Motor Vehicles Act to a regular permit holder.

¶31

Taking into account, the respective submissions made across the bar and perusal of Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this court cited (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the respondent

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.27373 OF 2016 3

¶33

can be directed to re-consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account the proposition of law laid down by this court in Ext.P4 judgment. In order to enable the respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application, Ext.P6 order is set aside and there will be a direction to the respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

sd/-

¶36

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶37

R.AV

Lijo George v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo George v. Secretary, 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

Abdul Nishad Vs Marykutty Issac

Ummayya Vs Ashraf P.P.

Kochukuttan Pv Vs Nandakumar

Dr. Krishnankutty Vs Sheik Pareed

Ponnamma John Vs the Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank

V.Raveendran Nair Vs the Koliyoor Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.2665