Dismissed

Rameshan v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019WP(C)/1002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to vary the halting place of his autorickshaw contract carriage permit. The Court directed the petitioner to resubmit the application and remit fees, instructing the authorities to consider the application expeditiously within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to resubmit application and remit fee within one week; Authorities to consider the application within six weeks.

Rameshan Vs Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1002 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAMESHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAMATHI, PANNIMATTATHIL, POOTHADI, ATHIRATTU KUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYNAD DISTRICT - 673 592.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYNAD DISTRICT - 673 592.

¶12

3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., WAYNAD - 673 592.

¶13

4 SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYNAD - 673 592 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1002 of 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is the registered owner of an

¶20

autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-73/A-9785 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 contract carriage permit, whereby he is permitted to ply the vehicle in all fit roads in Wayanad District except those prohibited by any law in force, with halting place as Kenichira. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application for variation of the conditions of Ext.P2 contract carriage permit, in order to change the halting place as Sulthan Bathery, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to grant variation of halting place pursuant to Ext.P3 application in respect of Ext.P2 contract carriage permit.

¶21

In support of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would place

¶22

WP(C).No. 1002 of 2019

¶23

-3-

¶24

reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (2014 (3) KLT 341).

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of the relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 4^th respondent Municipality is dispensed with.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority with Ext.P3 application, the same was not entertained. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶27

The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the 2^nd respondent is yet to receive Ext.P3 application and that, the said respondent shall accept such application if it is in order and place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would

¶29

WP(C).No. 1002 of 2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

submit that the petitioner shall resubmit Ext.P3 application before the 2^nd respondent and he shall also remit requisite fee, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶32

In such circumstances, this writ petition is

¶33

disposed of with the following directions:

¶34

i. Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall resubmit Ext.P3 application before the 2^nd respondent Secretary of Regional Transport Authority, and remit the requisite fee.

¶35

ii. If the application submitted by the petitioner is in order, the 2^nd respondent shall place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority and thereafter, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also to the Secretary of the 4^th respondent Municipality.

¶36

iii. Decisions in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

Sd/-

ANIL K NARENDRAN

JUDGE

bpr

WP(C).No. 1002 of 2019

¶42

-5-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION.	CERTIFICATES OF
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF CONT	RACT CARRIAGE PERMIT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER.	APPLICATION MADE BY
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE WP(C)No.21508 OF	JUDGMENT IN 2018.

¶46

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A. TO JUDGE

Rameshan v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshan v. 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

V. Subramannian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Riyanath.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mallika Vs the Poomangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

P. Vasu, Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

Udayakumar Vs the Secretary

Sidheeque Ullattil Vs the Secretary