Allowed

Vakiyath Koya v. the Secretary

Kerala HC23 Oct 2020WP(C)/22740/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Respondent to issue a provisional transport permit to the petitioner within eight weeks, ensuring confirmed timings from the Inspector do not clash with existing vehicles. Pending formal results, a timing conference may be held virtually.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to issue provisional permit within 8 weeks; timing conference to be scheduled (possibly virtual).

Vakiyath Koya Vs the Secretary — 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

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22740 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

VAKIYATH KOYA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.HYDER, VAKIYATH HOUSE, MATTATHUR, P.O. OTHUKKUNGAL, PIN-676528, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN-676505, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.22740 OF 2020(N) 2

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

~~~~~~~~

¶16

The petitioner was granted a regular permit by Ext.P1 proceedings subject to production of a suitable vehicle and settlement of timings. Pursuant to orders issued by this Court, the delay in production of the vehicle was condoned. The petitioner states that he has now procured a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-10/BE-1720 and submitted Ext.P4 request before the respondent to issue the regular permit on the basis of the timings proposed. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for regular permit has not been considered by the respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent to issue the permit in an expeditious manner.

¶17

Heard Sri. Saju J. Vallyara, the learned counsel appearing for

¶18

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that on account of COVID 19 pandemic, the authority is finding it difficult to schedule timing conferences and as a provisional measure, the permit can be issued to the petitioner by settling the timings provisionally after

¶20

WP(C).No.22740 OF 2020(N) 3

¶21

ensuring that the provisional timings do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating in the same route so that unnecessary competition and inconvenience can be avoided.

¶22

4. In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶23

a) The respondent shall obtain a report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector and ensure that the provisional timings offered by the petitioner and noted in Exhibit P1 do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating on the same route. If there is a likelihood of a clash of timings, the timing shall be modified accordingly. On the basis of the same, the respondent shall issue the permit to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the timing so fixed shall be provisional in nature.

¶24

b) The above direction shall be subject to settlement of timings formally at a timing conference which shall be scheduled by the concerned authority. If the situation is not conducive to hold an open meeting in physical mode, the respondent may hold the conference virtually, if there are no other impediments.

¶25

WP(C).No.22740 OF 2020(N) 4

¶26

c) It is also made clear that the issuance of the permit with provisional timing as directed in direction (a) above will not be seen as conferring any right on the petitioner to insist on the same timings at the time of settlement of the timings at the formal meeting to be convened by the Regional Transport Authority as per direction (b).

¶27

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

¶28

SD/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

DSV/23.10.2020

¶32

WP(C).No.22740 OF 2020(N) 5

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM DATED 25.9.2018 VIDE ITEM NO.10.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.3.2020 PROPOSING TO CONVENE A TIMING CONFERENCE (SL.NO.62) IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-10-BE-1720.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

NIL

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

Vakiyath Koya v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakiyath Koya v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil O. Vs the District Collector

R.Vijayan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sudheer S., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, Vs the District Collector

P.Thomas Vs the District Collector

Janaki Vs Special Tahsildar (L.R)