Disposed

Sasikala v. the Union of India

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020WP(C)/17745/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner complained about the non-consideration of her application for vehicle fitness certificate renewal. The Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to pass appropriate orders within three weeks applicable to the vehicle in question.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application within three weeks.

Sasikala Vs the Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17745 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SASIKALA

¶8

AGED 42 YEARS W/O.ANIL KUMAR, THUNDAZHIKATHU, ALAYAMAN, PATHANAMPURAM, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001.

¶12

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, VAZHATHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶14

4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.S.BIJU, CGC BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No.17745 OF 2020(P)

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Non-consideration of Ext.P2 application dated 13/07/2020 seeking renewal of certificate of fitness for the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 25/A 1314 belonging to the petitioner, is the grievance voiced in this writ petition.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader submits that in terms of Ext.P5, GO(P).No.22/2019/Tran dated 18/07/2019, since the petitioner has not submitted a G- form for the period during which the vehicle is alleged to have been not under use, the petitioner is liable to pay penalty as stipulated under Ext.P5.

¶22

Ext.P2 application having been received by the 4^th respondent, it is only proper that appropriate orders be passed on the same. The 4^th respondent shall pass orders on the application, in consonance with Ext.P5 and also the relevant Government Orders. The same shall be

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.17745 OF 2020(P)

¶25

done within a period of three weeks from the date of

¶26

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

WP(C).No.17745 OF 2020(P)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 1183(E) DATED 29.12.2016 ISSUED THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.06.2018 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.20163 OF 2018.

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.22/2019/TRAN DATED 18.07.2019 PUBLISHED AS SRO NO.562 OF 2019.

Sasikala v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikala v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh V.N. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Jayalakshmi P. Vs Union of India

P.N.Sreenivasan Vs the District Collector/District Magistrate

Najuma.K.a Vs State of Kerala

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vs Transport Commissioner

Velliyamattam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 3958, Vs State of Kerala