Disposed

Shaji S., v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC11 Dec 2018WP(C)/31726/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to respondents to issue a vehicle permit or consider an application for condition variation. The court directed the Joint RTO to forward the petitioner's application to the Regional Transport Authority for orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to place Ext.P9 application before 2nd respondent within two weeks, who must pass orders within six weeks with notice to petitioner and Municipality.

Shaji S., Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI S., AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN, KAVIL THEKKATHIL (H), ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 573.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY NORTH, KOLLAM - 690 544.

¶11

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY- 690 518.

¶12

3 TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690544, REPRESENTED BY IT CHAIRPERSON AND TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM690 544.

¶13

4 ADDL. R4 KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/11/2018 IN I.A. NO. 01/2018 OF WP(C) 31726/2018

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SR.GP. SMT. C.S. SHEEJA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-23/P-8219 covered by Ext.P3 certificate of registration and Ext.P4 contract carriage permit, whereby he is permitted to ply it in all fit roads in Kollam District subject to the condition that the vehicle shall not park or pick up passengers from within the city, with parking place at 'Puthiyakavu'. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to issue permit to his autorickshaw as approved in Ext.P6 decision of the 3^rd respondent Traffic Advisory Committee, for which fee was received as per Ext.P7. The petitioner has also sought for an alternative relief of directing the respondents to consider and allow Ext.P5 application dated 23/06/2018 after hearing him and taking into account Ext.P6 decision of the 3^rd respondent Traffic Advisory Committee.

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶24

On 28/09/2018, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3^rd respondent returnable within three weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

¶25

By order dated 29/11/2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018, Karunagappally Municipality represented by its Secretary was impleaded as additional 4^th respondent.

¶26

On 05/12/2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already moved an application in 'Form PVA' seeking variation of the conditions of Ext.P4 contract carriage permit. Today, when this case is taken up for further consideration, the petitioner has produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2018, Ext.P9 application dated 29/11/2018 submitted before the 1^st respondent after remitting the requisite fee by chalan dated 23/08/2018.

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the additional 4^th respondent Municipality.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner seeking variation of the conditions of Ext.P4 contract carriage permit, in respect of the petitioner's autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-23 P-8219 is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent and the said respondent may be directed to place it before the 2^nd respondent for necessary orders, taking note of the recommendation made by the 3^rd respondent Traffic Advisory Committee in Ext.P6 minutes.

¶31

The learned senior Government Pleader would submit that, if Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner is in order and the petitioner has also remitted the requisite fee, the 1^st respondent shall place it before the 2^nd respondent the Regional Transport Authority and thereafter the said authority shall take an appropriate

¶32

¶33

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶34

decision with notice to the petitioner and also to the 4^th respondent Municipality.

¶35

Having considered the submission made by the

¶36

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶37

(i) If Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner seeking variation of the conditions of Ext.P4 contract carriage permit is in order and he has remitted the requisite fee, the 1^st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer shall place it before the 2^nd respondent Regional Transport Authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent Regional Transport Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also to the additional 4^th respondent Municipality, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶40

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified

¶41

copy of this judgment.

¶42

The legal contentions raised by the petitioner relying on Ext.P6 decision of the third respondent Traffic Advisory Committee is left open to be raised before the 2^nd respondent at appropriate stage.

¶43

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the legality of the direction contained in Ext.P6 decision of the 3^rd respondent Traffic Advisory Committee.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

rsr

WP(C).No. 31726 of 2018

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE EVIDENCING HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT SURGERY.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HOSPITAL KARUNAGAPPALLY EVIDENCING CONTINUING TREATMENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE AUTO RIKSHAW ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN FORM P.CO UNDER RULE 144(B).
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DATED 23.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT RTO KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES ISSUED ON 09.08.2018 REGARDING THE MEETING CONDUCTED BY THE KARUNAGAPPALLY TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF THE FEES FOR THE PERMIT DATED 23.08.2018 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JOINT RTO KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 21.08.2018. P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM PVA SUBMITTED ON 29.11.18 ALONG WITH THE CHALAN DATED 23.8.18 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEE
EXHIBIT	P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 1.12.18 EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM

Shaji S., v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji S., v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

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

Nasir K.U. Vs State of Kerala

A.L.Babu Vs the Idukki District Taxi Drivers Co-Operative Society Limited

Princy Vs the Registrar of Co-Oiperative Societies

Ramya Vs the Deputy Registrar

Mohamed Jishad K. Vs Sasiprabha

Sharmila Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.