Disposed

George Sebstian @ Sebastian George, v. Pala Municipality

Kerala HC21 Mar 2019WP(C)/8699/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider an application for variation of an autorickshaw permit within six weeks, dismissing the certiorari plea regarding an RTI response.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to place the application before the 3rd respondent for consideration and orders within six weeks.

George Sebstian @ Sebastian George, Vs Pala Municipality — 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 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GEORGE SEBSTIAN @ SEBASTIAN GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS S/O DEVASSIA, UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, MURIKKUMPUZHA, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575

¶11

2 THE CHAIRPERSON PALA MUNICIAPALITY, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA - 686 575

¶13

4 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALA - 686 575

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY BY SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is the holder of Ext.P1 contract carriage permit in respect of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-35/J-1676, by which he is permitted to ply the said vehicle in all fit roads in Kottayam District, subject to the condition that the vehicle shall not park or pick up passengers from within the city, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1^st respondent Municipality communicated through Ext.P5, demanding consent letter of the Convener and members of the Visram Sanketh Stand Committee for allowing that request. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application for variation of permit, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent

¶21

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶22

¶23

Municipality representing respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶24

Ext.P5 is only an information furnished by the Public Information Officer in the office of the 1^st respondent Municipality, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which cannot be set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is non consideration of Ext.P6 application made by him for variation of the conditions of Ext.P1 contract carriage permit in respect of his autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-35/J-1676. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the 4^th respondent refused to accept Ext.P6 application, the same is sent by registered post, as evident from Ext.P7.

¶26

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner is in order and the petitioner has remitted the requisite

¶27

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶28

¶29

fee, the 4^th respondent shall place that application before the 3^rd respondent Regional Transport Authority and the said Authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, with notice to the petitioner and also the 1^st respondent Municipality.

¶30

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶31

i) If Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner is in order and the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee, the 4^th respondent shall place that application before the 3^rd respondent Regional Transport Authority.

¶32

ii) Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent shall consider Ext.P6 application and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 1^st respondent Municipality, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

¶33

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶34

¶35

six weeks from the date of receipt of that application.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

AV/22/3

¶39

WP(C).No. 8699 of 2019

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-35/J 1676 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2018 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.11.2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.3.2019 BY THE PETITIONER FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT

¶45

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P6

George Sebstian @ Sebastian George, v. Pala Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Sebstian @ Sebastian George, v. Pala Municipality

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

Gafoor, Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

C.H.Amina Vs M.Vijayan

Mountain View Properties Vs Pala Municipality

Prince Vs State of Kerala

Saritha.C.v Vs a.Shajahan IAS

Rajan N.V Vs Panchayath Secretary