Allowed

Priyadarshan A.J. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/28588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to issue a varied regular permit with provisional timings to a stage carriage owner within four weeks, subject to ensuring no clash with other vehicles, allowing virtual meetings for timing conferences during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to issue a varied regular permit with provisional timings within four weeks, subject to non-clash and virtual conference settlement.

Priyadarshan A.J. 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.28588 OF 2020(W)

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

PRIYADARSHAN A.J., S/O. JAGANNIVASAN NAIR, ARACKAL HOUSE, VARAPPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KUILIMALA, PINAV P.O., IDUKKI-685 603.

¶10

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.28588 OF 2020(W) 2

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-44-E-5679 operating on the route Vattapara - Ernakulam South with a regular permit. He submits that he has submitted an application for renewal of permit as well as to limit the route length to under 140 kms by modifying the route as Pooppara - Ernakulam. He submits that by Ext.P1 proceedings, the RTA has granted the renewal as well as variation limiting the route length to 139 kms. Though the petitioner submitted the current records of the vehicle, the varied regular permit has not been issued till date to enable him to conduct service. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to issue the varied regular permit with the proposed set of timings with liberty to the respondent to settle the same.

¶15

I have heard Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that on account of the restrictions imposed due to COVID 19 pandemic, the authority is finding it difficult to schedule timing conferences and as a provisional measure, the variation of permit can be endorsed by settling the timings

¶17

WP(C).No.28588 OF 2020(W) 3

¶18

provisionally after 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.

¶19

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

¶20

a) The respondent shall obtain a report from the Motor Vehicles

¶21

Inspector and ensure that the provisional timings offered by the petitioner 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 varied regular permit to the petitioner within a period of four 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.

¶22

b) The above direction shall be subject to settlement of timings

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

WP(C).No.28588 OF 2020(W) 4

¶26

Regional Transport Authority as per direction (b).

¶27

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with

¶28

a copy of the judgment before the respondent to ensure compliance.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

sru

¶33

WP(C).No.28588 OF 2020(W) 5

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA, IDUKKI VIDE NO.C3/27360/2017/ID DATED 5.3.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 26.6.2020 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶38

/TRUE COPY/

¶39

P.A. TO JUDGE

Priyadarshan A.J. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyadarshan A.J. 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

P.Rajamma Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala Distributors Association Vs Chairman, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board

Crystal Aggregates Private Limited Vs the Thahsildar

Uma Rajagopal Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Housing Federation LTD.NO.4330

Kammali Vs the Special Tahasildar(Land Reforms )

C.U.Thomas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H) and District Collector