Petitioner challenged inaction on permit application due to refusal to modify route. Court held Authority must consider application as presented under Section 72(1) Motor Vehicles Act.
Directed respondent to consider application under Section 72(1) Motor Vehicles Act and pass orders after hearing within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.1121 OF 2020(M)
PETITIONER:
BABU K. AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KELAPPAN, KURUGOTTU HOUSE, PALAYATTU NADA P.O., VADAKARA
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VADAKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., VADAKARA - 673 101
2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., VADAKARA - 673 101
SRI. K.P HARISH, SRGP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1121 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who has preferred an application for regular permit, has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the part respondent in considering the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not accede to the request of the respondent to modify the route for the permit applied for. It is the case of the petitioner that he cannot be compelled to modify the route in his application for permit and if the respondents chose to rejects his application as it stands when presented, they may do so but they cannot insist on him modifying the route in his application.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent cannot insist on the petitioner modifying his application as a condition for the consideration of his application for permit. The 1st respondent has to consider the application as presented and take a decision as to whether, regular permit can be granted or not. I therefore, dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
WP(C).No.1121 OF 2020
3
petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
SJ
WP(C).No.1121 OF 2020
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.8061/2016 DATED 10.03.2016.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Regional Transport Authority can insist on the petitioner modifying his permit application before considering it.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BABU K.
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VADAKARA
THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
