Disposed

Sivaraman V.P. v. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC19 Oct 2020WP(C)/14927/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by stage carriage operator seeking renewal of expired regular permit, vehicle replacement, and temporary permit. Court observed applications were pending with RTA and did not finally decide merits or issuance of interim directions within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing first respondent to place renewal application before RTA for consideration within eight weeks; second respondent to place replacement application before first respondent thereafter.

Sivaraman V.P. Vs the Secretary, the Regional… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14927 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVARAMAN V.P., S/O.RAGHAVAN, ATHIRA, PIPE LINE ROAD, MALAPARAMNA P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 020.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE, A BLOCK, LODHI ROAD, CGO COMPLEX, PRAGATHI VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 003.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶14

SRI K.P HARISH, SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.14927 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner states that he is an existing stage carriage operator and holds a regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg. No.KL-11R 9292, as per which, he was permitted to conduct service on the route ParampathPayyanakkal. His permit however had expired on 17.11.2007. Much prior to the expiry of the permit, he is stated to have submitted an application for renewal. He also sought for replacement of the vehicle with a newer model vehicle vide Registration No. KL-58A-6685 by submitting Exhibit P1 request. It is contended that since the Government has limited the city permits in the Corporations of Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi, no other persons are operating in the above route. In view of the vacancy that has arisen, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P2 application for temporary permit which is pending. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to entertain the application for replacement and for a further direction to permit him to conduct service with the incoming vehicle. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to consider the application for temporary permit in the vacancy of the petitioner’s stage carriage.

¶20

It is submitted by Sri K.P. Harish, the learned Senior Government

¶21

Pleader, that the permit issued to the petitioner to operate in the above route

¶22

WP(C).No.14927 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

had expired as early as on 13.11.2017. The petitioner applied for renewal of permit on 10.10.2017. The RTA, considering all the relevant aspects, allowed the application for renewal for a period of five years from the date of expiry. Though the decision was communicated on 27.2.2018, the petitioner failed to produce the current records of the vehicle within the date prescribed. Later, on 06.7.2020, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of replacement of vehicle and for issuance of temporary permit. However, the records of the incoming vehicle were not produced. The learned Government Pleader would rely on Usman v. RTA , Malappuram (2015 (4) KHC 779) and it was argued that the application for renewal of permit and replacement cannot be allowed at one shot. He would also refer to Sukumar K.K. v. TRA, Ernakulam (2015 (4) KHC 411) to hammer home his contention that the petitioner is not entitled to a temporary permit merely for the reason that there is vacant timings of another stage carriage.

¶25

I have heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

Having regard to the facts presented and the submissions made across the Bar, since it is the case of the petitioner that his application for renewal of regular permit and replacement of vehicle is pending consideration, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to place the application for renewal of regular permit before the RTA, which authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks

¶27

WP(C).No.14927 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. As held in Usman v. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram [2015 (4) KHC 779], the application for replacement shall thereafter be placed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent which shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in consonance with law within a further period of four weeks.

¶30

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the respondents to ensure compliance.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.14927 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/01/2020 FOR REPLACEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/07/2020 FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Sivaraman V.P. v. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaraman V.P. v. the Secretary, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jessy Roy, Vs the District Collector

T. T. Abdul Gafoor Vs M. Kuttimammad

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Station House Officer

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

P. K. Nazer Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Jose, Vs the Regional Transport Authority