The Court directed the Respondent Regional Transport Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's application for variation of transport permit in its next meeting within one month, as procedural formalities were completed.
Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SAMEER V.P.,S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, V.P.HOUSE, PALATHUMKARA, CHEKKIKULAM, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 592.
BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENTS:
SRI. BIMAL.K.NATH SR.G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.4591 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator.
The permit held by him, Ext P1, is valid till 13.08.2026. He has submitted Ext P2 application for variation of permit. In W.P(C) No.14573 of 2021, this Court had directed consideration of the application expeditiously. However, even as of now, the application remains unordered, is the grievance of the petitioner.
and the learned senior Government Pleader.
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, all the procedural formalities have been completed and the application is liable to be ordered.
Considering the entire facts and in the light of the judgment in W.P(C) No.14573 of 2021, it is ordered that 1st respondent shall have Ext P2 application considered and ordered in accordance with law, in its next meeting, which shall not be
WP(C) NO.4591 of 2022
3
beyond a period of one month from today. If
warranted, the meeting can be held in virtual mode.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
vdv
WP(C) NO.4591 of 2022
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4591/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VALID TILL 13/08/2021. |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH PROPOSED SET OF TIMING DATED 18/01/2021. |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/08/2021 IN WP(C) NO.14573 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FILED OFFICER IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER. |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/10/2021. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the variation application pending consideration by the 1st respondent should be ordered to be decided expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P(C) No.14573 of 2021Referred¶18
Sameer V.P.
The Regional Transport Authority
Sathish Ninan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
