Disposed

V. Subramannian v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC11 Jan 2019WP(C)/90/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider a revised application for a regular bus permit under Article 226. The court directed the authorities to obtain a feasibility report and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to obtain a feasibility report and consider the permit application within two months.

V. Subramannian 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

FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 90 of 2019

PETITIONER :

V. SUBRAMANNIAN

AGED 55 YEARS

S/O. KUNHUKUTTAN, VALAYANGADI HOUSE, P.O KOLAPARAMBA, MANJERI, PIN 676 522, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676 505

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676 505.

¶14

BY SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 90 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who submitted Ext.P1 application for grant of regular permit on the route Pandikkad-Kottothpadi Harijan Colony as ordinary service, has filed this writ petition

¶20

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶21

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to place the said application in the next meeting of the 1^st respondent and further direct the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the same in the next meeting itself.

¶22

On 04.01.2019, when this writ petition

¶23

came up for admission, the learned Senior

¶24

Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

¶25

petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on

¶27

instructions, would submit that if Ext.P1

¶28

WP(C).No. 90 of 2019

¶29

¶30

application made by the petitioner is in order and the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee, the 2^nd respondent shall place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority, after obtaining a feasibility report from the Enquiry Officer.

¶31

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

¶32

i) If Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner is in order, and the petitioner has remitted the requisite fee, the 2^nd respondent shall obtain a feasibility report from the Enquiry Officer, if not already obtained, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 2^nd respondent shall, thereafter, place it before the 1^st

¶33

respondent Regional Transport Authority

¶34

for consideration.

¶35

WP(C).No. 90 of 2019

¶36

¶37

ii) Thereafter, the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also other enrotue operators. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE

¶40

AV/15/1

¶41

WP(C).No. 90 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 10-12-2018.

¶46

EXHIBIT P2

¶47

PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10-12-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-1

V. Subramannian v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Subramannian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Balaram Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)

The Guruvayoor Co-Operative Urban Ltd. NO.F1652 Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)

Sunilkumar.M Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission

Riyanath.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mallika Vs the Poomangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Alikutty, Vs the Secretary