Disposed

Sameer N.P. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC16 Feb 2018WP(C)/3410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, owners of autorickshaws, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to command the Regional Transport Authority to re-assess city permits by deducting inactive users and to accept their applications for variation of permit conditions in accordance with existing principles.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to re-submit representation for variation of permit conditions; Authority directed to consider the application within six weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Sameer N.P. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3410 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SAMEER N.P., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.USMANKOYA N.P., N.V. HOUSE, ARAKKINAR (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2 ISMAYIL M.P., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN M.P., MALIYAM VEEDU PARAMBA, MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

3 ISMAIL U., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED U., ULLATTIL HOUSE, ARAKKINAR (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

4 JANEESH C., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALAVI C., CHEMBARAKKAL, THARUVALLIPADAM, NADUVATTAM, NORTH BEYPORE (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶12

SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶15

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶16

3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶17

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶18

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 3410 of 2018 (A)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-11- AM 9348 IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED NIL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-11-BA-7241 IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 24.06.2016 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-11-AN-4155 IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 05.08.2017 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-11-BB-6253 IN RESPECT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 04.04.2016 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED NIL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT-P10 REPRESENTATION ON 27.11.2017.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶31

W.P(C) No.3410 of 2018

¶32

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2018

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioners, who are stated to be the registered owners of autorickshaws bearing Registration Nos.KL-11/AM-9348, KL11/BA-7241, KL-11/AN-4155 and KL-11/BB-6253 covered by Exts.P1, P3, P5 and P7 certificates of registration and Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 contract carriage permits, are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to re-assess the total city permits issued to autorickshaws in Kozhikode city, after deducting the number of permit holders, who are not using the same. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept their application for variation of conditions of Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 permits and consider the same in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in Rajesh v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (2014(3)KLT 341) .

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

¶36

W.P(C) No.3410 of 2018 :2:

¶37

respondents.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2^nd respondent refused to entertain the online applications submitted by the petitioners as referred to in Ext.P9 representation dated 27.11.2017.

¶39

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that if the petitioners are submitting their applications in proper form, i.e., in Form PVA, after meeting the statutory requirements, the 2^nd respondent shall place it before the 3^rd respondent Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode for appropriate orders.

¶40

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶41

i) Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioners shall re-submit Ext.P9 representation for variation of condition of Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 contract carriage permits, before the 2^nd respondent, after fulfilling the statutory requirements.

¶42

ii) On receipt of such application, the 2^nd respondent shall place it before the 3^rd respondent

¶43

W.P(C) No.3410 of 2018 :3:

¶44

Regional Transport Authority and the said Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioners 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.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶47

ab.

Sameer N.P. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer N.P. v. the 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

John P. Varghese Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Thomas Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Valsakumariamma Vs State of Kerala

D. Ramachandran Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs Ponnani Shakarana Karshika Grama Vikasana Bank