Disposed

Haris K. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/10521/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by autorickshaw operators seeking a contract carriage permit within the Kalpetta Municipality. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to take a final decision on the application expeditiously, within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent (RTA) to take a final decision on the permit application and notify the petitioners and 3rd respondent within six weeks.

Haris 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 MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10521 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 HARIS K. AGED 49 YEARS S/O. ATTAKOYA THANGAL, KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDERI, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD.

¶8

2 SALIM C S/O NABEESSA M.K., CHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR FATHIMA HOSPITAL, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD.

¶9

3 RAJESH KUMAR P.M. S/O MANIKANDAN M., MANIYANKODE P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WAYANAD, PIN-673 121.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN-673 121.

¶14

3 THE KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALPETTA, PIN-673 121.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.BINOY DAVIS SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL

¶16

SPL.GOVT.PLEADER - SRI. P.SANTHOSHKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.10521 OF 2019(M)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners are stated to be residents of Kalpetta Municipality. They have made an application for contract carriage permit to ply autorickshaws within the limits of the 3^rd respondent Municipality, which was directed to be considered by Ext.P1 judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2018 in W.P. (C).No.38547/2018. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to take a final decision on Exhibit P2 proceedings dated 27.12.2018 (item No.39) and consider the same for the grant of permit within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for permit and grant the same if there is no other legal impediment, untrammelled by Exhibit P3 letter of the 3^rd respondent, adjourning the application after 2020, within a time limit.

¶22

On 04.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for

¶23

WP(C).No.10521 OF 2019(M)

¶24

¶25

consideration, the learned 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.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 1^st respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioners for contract carriage permit to ply their autorickshaws within the 3^rd respondent-Municipality, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the 1^st respondent to take a final decision on Ext.P2 proceedings dated 27.12.2018 (item No.39), with notice to the petitioners and also to the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Municipality, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶29

WP(C).No.10521 OF 2019(M)

¶30

¶31

copy of this judgment.

¶32

The legal contentions raised by the petitioners, relying on the judgment in Rajesh K.R v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath [2013 (1) KHC 172 and Rajesh v. Regional Transport Authority and others [2014 (3) KLT 341] are left open to be raised before the 1^st respondent at appropriate stage.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

Dxy

WP(C).No.10521 OF 2019(M)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 38547/2018 DATED 28.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 2.2.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.2.2019.

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2019.

Haris K. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haris 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shameer.T.M Vs the Registering Authority

Simon Abraham Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

A.K.Raveendran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Amala Cancer Hospital Society Vs Adat Grama Panchayat

Suresh Kumar Vs Ravi.P.v.

Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee, Vs State of Kerala