Disposed

Abdul Thahir v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC22 Mar 2021WP(C)/4005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Regional Transport Authority's refusal to allow replacement of a vehicle permit due to tax clearance issues. The court directed the authority to expedite the pending replacement applications within six weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the RTA to consider pending replacement applications and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Abdul Thahir Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C).No.4005 OF 2021(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABDUL THAHIR AGED 50 YEARS THENAMPULAKKAL HOUSE, EDARIKODE P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM 676 501.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION P.O., UPHILL, MALAPPURAM 676 505

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-032021, THE COURT ON 22-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).4005/2021

JUDGMENT

One Muhammed Shareef is the holder of the regular permit with respect to route Malappuram-Vengara in respect of his vehicle No.KL14D-2911 whose permit was to expire on 31.03.2021 by virtue of Ext.P2 Government order. A joint application was submitted by the said Muhammed Shareef along with the petitioner for transfer of the said vehicle, which was allowed by Ext.P4 application. The renewal of permit application was allowed as Ext.P3. The petitioner proposed to replace KL-14D-2911 with a new vehicle KL-55X-2077. This was refused by the authority holding that the documents in relation to the earlier vehicle and the current records were liable to be produced. It was also stated that, transfer of permit cannot be endorsed on a new vehicle unless the tax clearance is effected. This is under challenge in this Writ Petition and he also seeks a direction to the authority to consider the application and to endorse replacement of the vehicle with KL-55X-2077. Petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, wherein, this issue was considered.

¶17

Evidently, Ext.P6 judgment refers to a situation, wherein, the current records of the outgoing vehicle was sought. This was purported to be on a ground that, it was intended to verify whether tax was due. It was held that, in relation to the outgoing vehicle, no RC book is liable to be produced since for the purpose of verifying whether tax has been

¶18

W.P(C).4005/2021

¶19

¶20

paid, other records are available.

¶21

Opposing the application, learned Senior Government Pleader relied on the statement filed by the respondent. In the statement, it is stated that, vehicle KL-14D-2911 stands registered in the name of Muhammed Shareef. The application for transfer of permit in respect of stage carriage vehicle KL-14D-2911 in the name of Muhammed Shareef to the name of the petitioner was granted by the RTA. The decision of the RTA granting permit was communicated to both the applicants by a communication on 20.09.2019 directing them to produce the current records of the vehicle KL-14D-2911 within 14 days. It was asserted that the said vehicle has no valid tax/certificate of fitness for endorsing the grant of transfer of permit. Moreover, in spite of communication of the order of the RTA, petitioner had not approached that office for resuming the service of the vehicle and to provide current records of the vehicle within the stipulated time. It was asserted that, instead of conducting the service on the road, the grantee kept the vehicle under the non use of intimation in form-G for the period 01.04.2018 onwards. According to the authority, vehicle KL-14D-2911 was under continuous form-G from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2021. On 05.01.2021, the registered owner submitted request for replacing the above permit to another vehicle KL-06D-5493 and renewal of the permit application, which is valid upto 18.01.2021. Though the petitioner was called for a personal hearing and heard, the petitioner and the permit holder of the vehicle repeated the request to replace the permit to the

¶22

W.P(C).4005/2021

¶23

¶24

new vehicle, KL-06D-5493 and then to transfer the vehicle to his name. He was directed to update the records of vehicle No. KL-14D-2911 so as to endorse transfer.

¶25

The above facts reveal that, now, rival contentions are set up by both the persons, the petitioner as well as Muhammed Shareef. Ext.P7 replacement application filed by the petitioner is still pending. Having considered this situation that has arisen, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the RTA to take up Ext.P7 application as well as the application submitted by Muhammed Shareef to replace the permit with another vehicle and to pass appropriate orders on both the applications as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

W.P(C).4005/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.12.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 5.1.2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING TRANSFER OF PERMIT DATED 10.7.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.12000/2007 DATED 6.6.2007 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.1284/2021 DATED 29.1.2021 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 9.2.2021.

Abdul Thahir v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Thahir v. the Secretary, 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

Muraleedharan Nair Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Haneefa Vs the Secretary

Deepak Dilip Vs Kumarakom Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.2298

Abdul Basheer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Vinod Raghavan M., Vs the Registrar (General)

Subha.v Vs the Chief Information Commissioner