Disposed

Rashid.P v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/3328/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought variation of autorickshaw permit parking conditions from Pallikkunnu to Railway Station, Kannur. Court directed 2nd respondent to entertain application within one week and 1st respondent to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to re-submit application with fee; 2nd respondent to forward if in order; 1st respondent to decide within six weeks with notices.

Rashid.P Vs Regional Transport Authority — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3328 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RASHID.P., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN O.K., SHAKEELA QUARTERS, TALAP, PALLIKUNNU POST, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670 002.

¶10

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR-670 002.

¶11

3 KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670 001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.VANIAH MARIA DOMINIC SRI.SAJI THOMAS

¶13

SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 3328 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is the registered owner of an

¶19

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-13/AM-9973, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 contract carriage permit issued by the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority, whereby the petitioner is permitted to ply the vehicle in all fit roads in Kannur District, subject to the condition that the vehicle shall not parK or pick up passengers from within the city. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to receive and allow Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner for permit variation. The parking place allotted to the petitioner is Pallikkunnu. Now the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 application dated 28.01.2019, submitted before the 1^st respondent, is to vary the said condition in Ext.P2 contract carriage permit and to permit him to park autorickshaw at Railway Station, Kannur.

¶20

WP(C).No. 3328 of 2019

¶21

-3-

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

¶23

respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Municipality.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent with Ext.P3 application, the same were not entertained. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶25

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.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall re-submit 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.

¶27

WP(C).No. 3328 of 2019

¶28

-4-

¶29

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

¶30

with the following directions ;

¶31

(i) Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall re-submit Ext.P3 application before the 2^nd respondent and remit the requisite fee.

¶32

(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 3^rd respondent Municipality.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶36

bpr

¶37

WP(C).No. 3328 of 2019

¶38

-5-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF TH CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO KL-13-AM- 9973
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.1.2019 TENDERED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Rashid.P v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid.P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Wilson Vs Kalady Grama Panchayath

Tholur Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Pathuthara Hussain Haji Vs the Porur Grama Panchayath

M.S.Jini Vs the State of Kerala

Mohanan.a Vs Suresh

Pathumma Vs District Collector