Disposed

Muhammed Rafi v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC24 Jun 2022WP(C)/461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, to consider the petitioner's application for vehicle replacement within one month, noting the application was pending despite a prior renewal grant.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement of vehicle within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Muhammed Rafi Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 461 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED RAFI AGED 44 YEARS S/O. KUNJIMOHAMMED, THOTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAPPUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD – 679 552.

¶8

BY ADVS. I.DINESH MENON NEETHU SOMAN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P. O., PALAKKAD – 678 001.

¶11

SRI. JIMMY GEORGE – GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.461 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Koottanad – Edappal. Ext.P1 permit expired on 21.05.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal of permit on 15.07.2020. He has also filed Ext.P3 application for replacement with KL-52 J 109. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the delay in consideration of Ext.P3 application.

¶17

A statement has been filed by the respondent stating that the permit is not renewed since the vehicle is not fit for use. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that by Ext.P5, the renewal has already been granted and what remains is only consideration of Ext.P3 application for replacement.

¶18

WP(C).No.461 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

and the learned Government Pleader for the

¶22

respondent.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement of vehicle in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the writ petition or Ext.P3 application pending before the respondent.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶27

SPR

¶28

WP(C).No.461 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 15.07.2020 WITH CHALAN RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 15.07.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF VEHICLE KL-9 L 1453. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF RTA IN ITEM NO.54 DATED 08.11.2021.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Muhammed Rafi v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Gopalakrishnan Vs Paravoor Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Subramanian. K

Sajamon M.V. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Asok Babu @ Alan Babu Vs Subran

Ajoy Prakash, Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

1. a.Balasubhramanian Vs Food Corporation of India Rep. by Its Chairman & Managing Director