Allowed

Akhila Lal v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC20 Oct 2020WP(C)/17340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by permit holders, the High Court of Kerala directed the Regional Transport Authority to endorse permit transfer and approve a vehicle replacement application without requiring production of current records of the outgoing vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to endorse the transfer of permit and take up the application for replacement of vehicle without insisting on production of current records of the outgoing vehicle.

Akhila Lal Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 28TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17340 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AKHILA LAL,

¶8

HOUSE NO.9/203, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VELI, FORT KOCHI - 682001.

¶9

2 ZEENATH, MULAKKAMPILLY HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682021.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682030.

¶14

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.17340 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The 1st petitioner herein is the holder of a regular stage carriage permit on the strength of which he operates stage carriage bearing registration No.KL05-Q-3360 along the Konthuruthy-Kakkanad route. The petitioners contend that by Exhibit-P2 proceedings, the permission was accorded for transfer of the permit from the name of the 1st petitioner to that of the 2nd petitioner. To enable the 2nd petitioner to operate the service efficiently, she decided to replace the older model vehicle with a newer model vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL58-9747 and submitted Ext.P4 representation for endorsing the transfer of permit. Even though the validity of Exhibit-P1 expired on 28.05.2020, by virtue of Exhibit-P7 order, the validity stands extended till 30.09.2020. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has refused to entertain Ext.P5 application for replacement on the ground that the transfer of permit sanctioned by the 1st respondent vide Exhibit-P2 can be endorsed only on production of the current records of the old vehicle.

¶20

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to endorse the transfer of permit as well as to consider Ext.P5 application for replacement of vehicle without insisting on the production of the current records of the outgoing vehicle.

¶21

WP(C).No.17340 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

I have heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶24

It is contended by Sri.Deepak relying on Rule 178(5) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 dealing with transfer of permit that all that is required is the production of the permit and not the current records of the outgoing vehicle. He would also refer to Section 83 of the Act and it was argued that while considering an application for replacement of vehicle, the respondent would not be justified in insisting upon the production of the records of the outgoing vehicle. Reliance is also placed on Exts.P8 and P9 judgments of this Court to hammer home his contentions.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents were not justified in insisting upon the petitioners to produce the records of the outgoing vehicle for considering the application for endorsing the transfer of permit and also for considering the grant of replacement of the older vehicle. The respondents can very well insist upon the petitioners that they shall clear the dues payable by the petitioners by way of tax as well as contribution to the welfare funds as applicable.

¶26

In that view of the matter, I direct the 2nd respondent to endorse

¶27

the transfer of permit and also to take up the application for replacement of vehicle as sought for in Ext.P5 application without insisting on the production of the current records of the outgoing vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-05-Q 3360.

¶28

WP(C).No.17340 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

Order shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks

¶31

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

This petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

DSV

¶37

WP(C).No.17340 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER VALID TILL 28/05/2020.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18/09/2019. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-58-9747. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/02/2020.

¶43

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 27/02/2020. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL DATED 27/02/2020.

¶44

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/06/2020 OF THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶45

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/05/2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.11581 OF 2014. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/04/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.12901 OF 2016.

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Akhila Lal v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhila Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

P. K. Nazer Vs State of Kerala

Subramanian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Khaja Sharafudheen Vs the District Collector

K.a.Unnimon Vs State of Kerala