Dismissed

Pankajavally P.K. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC23 Sept 2019WA/1921/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single Judge's order directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider a vehicle replacement application despite a pending suit. The Court held the underlying matter was disposed of by the authority, rendering the appeal infructuous, reserving liberty to challenge the final order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; liberty to challenge the order permitting vehicle replacement was reserved.

Pankajavally P.K. Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1921 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3287/2019(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:

¶10

PANKAJAVALLY P.K.,

¶11

AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. SASIDHARAN M.N., MULACKAL HOUSE, KEZHUVAMKULAM P. O., PULIYANOOR, PALA, KOTTAYAM – 686 573.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶14

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

¶15

KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶16

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM – 686 002.

¶17

3 JISHNU G. NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUZHUPPALLIL HOUSE, CHERUPUNNKAL, KOTTAYAM – 686 584.

¶18

SR.GP-SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.A.No.1921 of 2019

¶21

¶22

C.K.Abdul Rehim, Ag. C.J. &

¶23

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J.

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

W.A.No.1921 of 2019

¶26

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2019

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Abdul Rehim, Ag. C.J.

¶29

The 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.3287 of 2019 is the appellant herein, challenging judgment of the single Judge, dated 21.6.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the Writ Petition and the writ petitioner.

¶30

The 3^rd respondent approached this court seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application submitted by him, seeking permission for replacement of the vehicle which is plied on the strength of a stage carriage permit held by him, without insisting on production of any 'cancellation of lease agreement' and untrammeled by the pendency of the suit, O.S.No.815 of 2018 before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. The appellant opposed the Writ Petition by contending that, the suit in question is filed by him seeking recovery of the amount of lease in arrears with respect to the vehicle which is sought to be replaced and

¶31

W.A.No.1921 of 2019

¶32

¶33

hence Ext.P5 application cannot be considered. The learned single Judge observed that, mere pendency of a suit filed by the appellant seeking recovery of money will not bar the 2^nd respondent from considering Ext.P5 application. Therefore a direction was issued to the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 application after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as to the 3^rd respondent herein, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, untrammeled by the pendency of O.S.No.815 of 2018. It was clarified that the question, whether the 3^rd respondent is bound to produce the 'lease cancellation agreement' for the consideration of Ext.P5 application, will be left open to be decided by the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

In this appeal it is contended that, the application for permitting replacement of vehicle cannot be allowed in view of provisions contained in Rule 174(2)(d) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Sri.G.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that, since the vehicle which was sought to be replaced was deprived of from the possession of the 3^rd respondent based on violation of the terms of the lease agreement executed between the appellant and the 3^rd

¶35

W.A.No.1921 of 2019

¶36

¶37

respondent, the said application cannot be allowed.

¶38

Question to be considered by the competent authority at the time of permitting replacement of the vehicle is, whether the existing vehicle has been deprived of possession from the applicant on the basis of the terms of an agreement of lease. It is a question to be decided by the authority on analysing the factual aspects involved. Observation made by the learned single Judge is only that, the pendency of a suit for recovery of the lease amount by itself is not a relevant material for consideration to hold that the possession has been deprived on the basis of the terms of the lease. But the learned Judge had made it clear that, whether there is requirement of production of the 'lease cancellation agreement', is a matter which can be decided by the authority himself. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the view taken in the impugned judgment.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that, pursuant to the impugned judgment the 2^nd respondent had already considered the matter and passed an order on 29.8.2019, permitting replacement of the vehicle applied for. Hence, it is submitted that, the issue involved has

¶40

W.A.No.1921 of 2019

¶41

¶42

become infructuous. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application was allowed only in view of the direction contained in the impugned judgment. We take note of the fact that the impugned judgment was passed as early as on 21.6.2019 and this Writ Appeal was filed at a belated stage along with an application seeking condonation of delay to the extent of 39 days. However, since the application has already been disposed of, it is for the appellant to challenge the order if she is aggrieved in any manner, if so advised.

¶43

In the result, the above Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed by reserving liberty to the appellant to challenge the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent on 29.8.2019, to the extent permissible under law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

C.K.Abdul Rehim, Acting Chief Justice

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

R.Narayana Pisharadi,

Judge

vpv

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

Pankajavally P.K. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankajavally P.K. v. the Regional Transport Authority

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

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resports Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

John Varghese Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

The Chairman, Indira Charitable Trust, Vs State of Kerala

Southern Dredging Company (P) Ltd. Vs Secretary to Government