Dismissed

Shijo Thampy v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC27 Sept 2021WP(C)/17899/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for a regular permit. The court directed the authority to examine the application on its merits after hearing the petitioner within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be heard; authority to consider permit application and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Shijo Thampy Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17899 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIJO THAMPY

¶8

AGED 42 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, AMBALAKANDAVIL HOUSE, KURICHY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 532.

¶9

BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶13

BY SRI.BIMAL K. NATH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.17899 of 2021 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2021

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first

¶19

respondent for consideration of Ext.P3 application for regular permit.

¶20

The learned Government Pleader points out that

¶21

on an earlier occasion the petitioner has submitted an application for regular permit which was rejected as per Ext.P1 order dated 19.07.2004.

¶22

So many years having elapsed since the passing of Ext.P1 order, I deem it appropriate that the first respondent considers the application(Ext.P3) on its merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing anything on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P3 application for

¶24

W. P. (C) No.17899 of 2021 -: 2 :-

¶25

regular permit, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt

¶26

of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17899/2021

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE HELD ON 19/07/2004	DECISION OF RTA, KOTTAYAM IN ITEM NO.10.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER AND	TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO VALID TILL 29/12/2017.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT SUBMITTED 28/07/2021.	APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BY THE PETITIONER DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
	THE PETITIONER B DATED 28/07/2021.	EFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF TH REGARDING THE APPL	E PRINT OUT FROM VAHAN ICATION FOR PERMIT ON-LINE.

Shijo Thampy v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shijo Thampy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philomina Joseph Vs D.Dharmalasri IAS

Elsy C.C Vs Managing Director

C.C.Job, Vs Benny Mathew

The Secretary Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Annena Nargees P.P Vs the Regional Officer

Tessy Francis Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.