Dismissed

Shanavas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC9 Jan 2019WP(C)/41345/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a mandamus commanding the Regional Transport Authority to consider an application for an autorickshaw contract carriage permit, directing the petitioner to re-submit the application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to re-submit application and remit fee within one week; Authority to consider it if in order.

Shanavas Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/19TH POUSHA,1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 41345 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHANAVAS AGED 33 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, KOLLADATH HOUSE, MUNDERI, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

3 KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KALPETTA - 673 121.

¶13

SRI BIMAL K.NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.41345/2018

-2-

JUDGMENT

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 Regional Transport Authority to consider Ext.P1 application for contract carriage permit to ply autorickshaw within the City limits of Kalpetta Municipality.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent Secretary of Regional Transport Authority with Ext.P1 application, the same was not entertained. In such circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶21

The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the 2^nd respondent shall accept Ext.P1 application, if it is in order, and place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶23

W.P.(C)No.41345/2018

¶24

-3-

¶25

the petitioner shall re-submit Ext.P1 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.

¶26

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶27

i. Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall re-submit Ext.P1 application, before the 2^nd respondent Secretary of Regional Transport Authority, and remit the requisite fee.

¶28

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.

¶29

iii. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of this writ petition before the 2^nd respondent, along with a certified copy of this judgment.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

JUDGE

dsn

W.P.(C)No.41345/2018

-4-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 13/12/2018.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/07/2018 IN WPC NO.21781 OF 2018.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL

¶41

TRUE COPY

¶42

P.S. TO JUDGE

Shanavas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas 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

Veena K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Johnson.C.L Vs the Secretary

Ayisha Vs the Secretary

Vinod Kumar, Vs Sandeep

Dr.E.K.Ummer, Vs Usha Titus IAS

Aji Paul Vs Tomin J Thachankari IPS