Disposed

Mohammed Ajmal.K.N v. the Transport Commissioner

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019WA/1186/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala closed the writ appeal despite the appellant having removed objectionable artwork. The court directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the application for renewing advertisement permission on the appellant's contract carriage within two weeks, in compliance with Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal closed; RT Officer directed to consider application for advertisement renewal within two weeks in compliance with Rule 191.

Mohammed Ajmal.K.N Vs the Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

W.A.No.1186 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7780/2019 of HIGH COURT DATED 14.3.2019

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

MOHAMMED AJMAL.K.N, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED ANSARI K, KILIYANKAL (H), KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 030

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶14

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 030

¶15

3 ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 030

¶16

SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1186 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶22

The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment dated 14.3.2019 in W.P. (C)No.7780 of 2019 to the extent it dismissed the Writ Petition (C)No.7780/2019 wherein a prayer was made for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider and pass orders on applications preferred by the writ petitioner for renewing the permission for exhibition of advertisements on the body of contract carriages owned by him.

¶23

When the matter was taken up today for orders, the learned counsel Sri.Hariharan, appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that pursuant to the judgment impugned in this Appeal, the Writ petitioner/appellant has removed the art work on the contract carriage, that was found objectionable by the Regional Transport Authorities as well as by this court in the impugned judgment, and has now presented the vehicle before the Regional Transport Officer, along with an application for renewing the permission for displaying advertisements on the body of the contract carriage vehicle. It is the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage, that the Writ Appeal be closed by directing the Regional Transport Officer to consider the application for renewal of the permission for carrying advertisements on the body of the contract carriage, in accordance with law and after hearing the appellant/petitioner.

¶24

W.A.No.1186 of 2019

¶25

¶26

On a consideration of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, and of the Government Pleader Sri.Santhosh Kumar, we deem it appropriate to close this Writ Appeal by upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directing the Regional Transport Officer to consider the application, for renewal of the permission for advertising on the body of the contract carriage vehicle, preferred by the Appellant, in accordance with law and in strict compliance with Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The Regional Transport Officer shall consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application, along with a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Appeal and a copy of the judgment before the Regional Transport Officer, Civil Station, Kakkanad for further action.

¶27

SD/-

¶28

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

SD/-

¶30

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

jes

Mohammed Ajmal.K.N v. the Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ajmal.K.N v. the Transport Commissioner

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

Wilfred Vs District Collector

P.S.Parameswaran Nambeesan Vs the Thrissur Municipal Corporation

State of Kerala, Vs Amal Krishnan C.V

Susamma Luke Vs Corporation of Kollam

Prasanth K., Vs Saju George

Sreedevi, Vs Smt.v.a.Sheeja