Disposed

P.L.Thomas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC10 Feb 2022WP(C)/3782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a regular permit holder, approached this court seeking expedient consideration of his renewal application held pending due to lack of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the financier. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application while putting the financier on notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed to apply for regular permit renewal, and Respondent was directed to consider the application after putting the financier on notice.

P.L.Thomas Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3782 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.L.THOMAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LAZER, PANENGADAN HOUSE, PARLIKKAD P.O., WADAKKANCHERY, THRISUR-680 623

¶7

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003

¶11

G.P SRI SHAMEER.P.M

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.3782 of 2022

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2022

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Petitioner is the holder of a regular permit. His

¶18

application seeking renewal of permit is not being considered by the authority for lack of NOC from the

¶19

financier, is the case of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks for an expeditious consideration of the renewal application.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶21

On the facts as above, it would be sufficient if the application is considered by the authority on

¶22

putting the financier on notice regarding the application.

¶23

Accordingly without expressing anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶24

first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders

¶25

on the application for renewal of regular permit,

¶26

W.P.(C) No.3782 of 2022

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and

¶29

with due notice to the financier of the vehicle-Catholic

¶30

Syrian Bank Ltd., Wadakkanchery.

¶31

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3782/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED 4.8.2007 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL08-AH-1354 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL DATED 7.5.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR NOC DATED 26.4.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.1.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.831 OF 2020 DATED 14.1.2020 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.19190/2021 DATED 30.9.2020

P.L.Thomas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.L.Thomas 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

K.J. Baby Vs State of Kerala

Queens Hotel Vs the Excise Commissioner

T.K.Chandramohan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General ) Iduki

Postal, Vs Union of India

Muhammed Rafeeq Tunelakachi, Vs Regional Transport Authority

Shaji P G Vs Additional Registering Authority