Partly allowed

R.Mohan Kumar v. the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020WP(C)/1117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order restricting his inter-district permit renewal to 140 km, claiming it was a saved permit under KSTRC Vs Saju Varkey. Court followed the precedent, quashed the restrictive order, and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order quashed; Direction to 1st respondent to reconsider the application for renewal in light of Saju Varkey's case decision within three weeks.

R.Mohan Kumar Vs the Regional Transport Authority… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1117 OF 2020(L)

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

R.MOHAN KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O.RAMASWAMY, VINAYAKA HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION,VATAKARA, PIN673 101.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA, PIN-673 101.

¶11

SRI. K.P HARISH, SRGP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.1117 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara, whereby on an application submitted by him for renewal of the inter district permit that was valid till 31/10/2014, in respect of vehicle bearing registration number KL-08-BH 1841, the said authority opined that unless the petitioner restricted the route length for his permit to within 140 Kms, his application for renewal could not be considered.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of this Court in KSTRC Vs Saju Varkey and others ,[2018 (4) KHC 617], to contend that the permit held by the petitioner being a saved permit, as contemplated under the said judgment, the maximum distance limit would not apply to his permit. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 order and to direct the 1^st respondent to reconsider the application for renewal of permit in the light of the decision of this Court in Saju Varkey's case (supra).

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶19

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the judgment referred above, and dispose the writ petition by directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P2

¶20

WP(C).No.1117 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

application for renewal of the permit in the light of decision of this court in Saju Varkey's case (supra) and pass orders thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the 1^st respondent to do so, I quash Ext.P4 order.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No.1117 OF 2020

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE THALASSERYKOZHIKODE-THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.09.2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE THALASSERYKOZHIKODE-THRISSUR VALID TILL 20.03.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.07.2019.

R.Mohan Kumar v. the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mohan Kumar v. the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Pradeep Kumar Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Ltd.

Sheela Devi, Vs the Secretary Perumpuzha Gramodharana Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.2533

P.v.Kuttappan Vs the Aluva Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank LTD.NO.E-87

Sheeja Santhosh Vs Kunnukara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 877

Babu K. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Abdul Nazar, Vs Rajan