Dismissed

Sunny Joseph v. the Secretary

Kerala HC24 Oct 2018WP(C)/26630/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Kerala High Court disposed of a petition contesting delays in granting permit modifications. The Court directed the RTA to decide a variation application within five weeks and to order endorsement of limited stop facility within two weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The RTA directed to decide the variation application within five weeks and to endorse the limited stop facility within two weeks thereafter.

Sunny Joseph Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 26630 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNNY JOSEPH PETTAKATTU HOUSE, MANNAKKANADU, KURAVILANGAD PO, MAVINCHUVADU, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHEEJA C.S.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.26630/2018

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner, who is the holder of a regular permit granted vide Exhibit-P1 proceedings dated 2.2.2017 of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, on the route Irumpoonikara-Puthenpalam in respect of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11/X 3137, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to endorse the limited stop facility already granted as per Exhibit-P1 proceedings and issue the same by considering Exhibit-P2 proposed timings, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to settle the timing in the event of any objection, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

On 7.8.2018, when this Writ Petition came up for admission,

¶18

the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶19

A statement dated 11.9.2018 has been filed on behalf of the respondent opposing the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said statement read thus :

¶20

“2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit in respect of the vehicle KL11X/3137 which is permitted to conduct service on the route Irumpoonikkara-Puthenpalam as ordinary service on the strength of a regular permit valid up to

¶21

W.P.(C) No.26630/2018

¶22

¶23

19.11.2022. The above Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to endorse the limited stop facility in the permit.

¶24

It is submitted that stage carriage KL-11X/3137 is operating on the route Irumpoonikkara-Puthenpalam as ordinary service. The application for variation of condition of permit as Limited Stop Ordinary Service and deviation of the route was placed before the Regional Transport Authority meeting held on 2.2.2017. As per Exhibit-P1 order the application for conversion as LS OS was granted. The application for variation was rejected. The petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal against the rejection of variation. The Tribunal directed to reconsider the application for variation afresh.

¶25

The judgment in MVAA No.107/2017 dated 24.5.2018 has been received, in which it is directed to reconsider the application for variation sought for by the appellant afresh and pass orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after hearing all the parties concerned. In these circumstances, notice was issued to Joint Regional Transport Officer, Pala to submit the present timings of the route as per D3/875/STA/2005 which is not received yet.

¶26

Hence, there is no delay in considering the application as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is duty bound and never caused any delay in performing his statutory duties. This authority has considered the application as

¶27

W.P.(C) No.26630/2018

¶28

¶29

and when submitted. No delay occurred in the processing of the petitioner’s application. After receiving the report of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Pala the variation application will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. The endorsement of conversion as LS OS can also be made after the consideration of the variation application.”

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶31

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the request made by the petitioner before the respondent to endorse the limited stop facility granted as per Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority is pending consideration. At the same time, the request made by the petitioner for variation of his permit, is also under consideration of the respondent, pursuant to the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.107 of 2017, which is one dated 24.5.2018.

¶32

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to take a final decision on the request for variation sought for by the petitioner, as directed in the judgment dated 24.5.2018 in MVAA No.107 of 2017, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and based on the decision so taken, the respondent

¶33

W.P.(C) No.26630/2018

¶34

¶35

Secretary shall pass orders on the request made by the petitioner in Exhibit-P2 to endorse the limited stop facility, within a further period of

¶36

two weeks.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶39

W.P.(C) No.26630/2018

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.2.2017.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶45

csl //True copy//

¶46

P.S. To Judge

Sunny Joseph v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Joseph v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Board of Directors of the Parakode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Board of Directors,Munrothuruthu Service Co-Operative Society Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

Illias K.P Vs State of Kerala

M.V. Surendran Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Hotel Ranni Gate(P)Ltd Vs the Excise Commissioner