Allowed

Jishnu.G.Nair v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WP(C)/3287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that pendency of a civil suit for recovery of rental arrears does not bar the Regional Transport Authority from considering a petitioner's application to replace the stage carriage in his valid permit. The Court directed the RTO to process the application within one month, untrammeled by the civil suit, while leaving the issue of lease cancellation deed production open.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the replacement application within one month, untrammeled by the pending suit, while leaving the requirement for a lease cancellation deed op

Jishnu.G.Nair Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

JISHNU.G.NAIR AGED 38 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUZHUPPALLIL HOUSE, CHERUPUNNKAL, KOOTAYAM

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM-686 002

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM-686 002

¶12

3 PANKAJAVALLY P.K., MULACKAL HOUSE, KEZHUVAMKULAM P.O., PULIYANOOR,PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 573

¶13

BY ADV.

¶14

SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶15

BY SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Medical College-Pala, which is valid till 06.03.2020. The permit was originally issued in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL17/E-3639, which was later replaced by stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-40/B-2106 with effect from 18.12.2017, on the strength of Ext.P2 lease deed dated 14.12.2017 entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. Now, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application dated 24.10.2018 for replacement of the stage carriage covered by Ext.P1 permit by another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/H-350, which is covered by Ext.P3 certificate of registration, without insisting for production of any lease agreement cancellation deed and untrammeled

¶21

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶22

¶23

by the pendency of O.S.No.815 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, which is one filed by the 3^rd respondent for recovery of money, alleging nonpayment of rental arrears of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-40/B-2106.

¶24

On 05.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 3^rd respondent returnable by 12.02.2019. The learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. A statement has been filed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel

¶27

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶28

¶29

appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

The relief sought for in this writ petition is consideration of Ext.P5 application for replacement, without production of lease agreement cancellation deed and untrammeled by the pendency of O.S.No.815 of 2018 filed by the 3^rd respondent, which is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam.

¶31

A reading of the statement filed by the 2^nd respondent, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, would show that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent regarding non-payment of rental arrears with respect to stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-40/B-2106, which was attached to Ext.P1 regular permit. Now the petitioner wants to replace that vehicle by attaching another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/H-350, which is owned and possessed by the petitioner. For that purpose the petitioner has made Ext.P5 application. The 2^nd

¶32

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶33

¶34

respondent would also point out that stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-57/H-350 is already attached to another permit on the strength of a lease agreement, and the petitioner is yet to produce materials to show that the said lease agreement is not subsisting. The 3^rd respondent has also raised similar contentions in the counter affidavit.

¶35

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that the mere pendency of O.S.No.815 of 2018, which is a suit filed by the 3^rd respondent before the competent Civil Court for recovery of money, will not bar the 2^nd respondent from considering Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for replacement.

¶36

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle

¶37

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶38

¶39

attached to Ext.P1 regular permit, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3^rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, untrammeled by the pendency of O.S.No.815 of 2018.

¶40

It is made clear that the question as to whether the petitioner has to produce lease agreement cancellation deed for consideration of Ext.P5 application, is left open to be decided by the 2^nd respondent, at appropriate stage.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

AV/22/6

¶44

WP(C).No.3287 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 06.03.2020
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2017
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-57-H-350
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF LEASE DATED 24/10/2018
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 24.10.2018
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL HEARING NOTICE DATED 02.11.2018 (C1/15107/2018/K) RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10.11.2018
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT CANCELLATION NOTICE DATED 02.11.2018 (C1/15107/ 2018/ K) RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.11.2018
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.815 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.3637 OF 2018
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS IN RELATION TO O.S.NO.815 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM

Jishnu.G.Nair v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jishnu.G.Nair 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

Mary Vincent, Vs Kochi Corporation

Anil Kumar.T.P Vs the Secretary

Shirley Philip, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Prasannakumary, Vs the District Geologist

Leena.C.H Vs the Secretary

Saji Andrews Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer