Disposed

Manoj.K v. Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WP(C)/38556/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a declaration against restrictions on autorickshaw permits and a mandamus to entertain his application for permit variation. The court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application with proper notice within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to entertain the petitioner's application for permit variation and pass appropriate orders with notice to the parties.

Manoj.K Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kannur — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 38556 of 2017 (T) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ K, S/O.NARAYANAN, FARANA COTTAGE, KUNNUMKAI, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR-670011.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670002.

¶11

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR-670002.

¶12

*** ADDL R3 IMPLEADED**

¶13

3. KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, KANNUR-670001.

¶14

*** ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7/12/2017 IN IA NO.19712/2017. R1,R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C.S.SHEEJA R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SRI.MANU SRINATH**

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

WP(C).No. 38556 of 2017 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO KL-13-AA-2992. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 22-11-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL TENDERED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-4-2017 IN WP(C) NO.14511 OF 2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶22

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J

¶24

................................................. W.P.(C) No. 38556 of 2017(T)

¶25

............................................... Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2017

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner, who is the owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-13/AA-2992 covered by Ext.P2 contract carriage permit, is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents cannot restrict the number of permit for autorickshaw that can be plied within the limits of erstwhile Kannur Municipality. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to receive and allow Ext.P3 application submitted by him for permit variation and issue KMC number.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Kannur Municipal Corporation.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for variation of permit in respect of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-13/AA-2992 covered by Ext.P2 contract carriage permit is yet to be taken on file by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, if such an application is submitted before the 1^st respondent,

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 38556 of 2017 (T)

¶32

¶33

the same shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also the 3^rd respondent Municipal Corporation.

¶34

In such circumstances, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to entertain Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for variation of permit and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3^rd respondent Municipal Corporation. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶35

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶36

AMV/11/12/2017

Manoj.K v. Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj.K v. Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

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

Dhanya.K.C. Vs Sulthan Batheri Taluk Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.No. W 299

V.S.Pradeep Vs the State Transport Authority

V.Unnikrishnan Vs the Kerala Co-Opperative Milk Marketing Federation (Kcmmf) Ltd.

R.Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Sasikumar Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.N. Vasanthy Vs the Regional Transport Authority