Dismissed

Anilkumar , v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC19 Jun 2023WP(C)/13140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a fine imposed for operating a bus with unapproved seating capacity while a pending request to reduce seats awaited consideration. The court observed that the request had already been rejected and dismissed the petition without prejudice to statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out statutory remedies.

Anilkumar , Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13140 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANILKUMAR ,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KOMARETH VEEDU,
NEENDOOR KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683522

¶8

BY ADVS.G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
GENTLE C.D.
BIJOY SAM GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER , SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683513

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM -682030

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP SRI SREEJITH V S

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.13140/2023

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

Dated this the 19^th day of June,2023

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first respondent to consider Ext P3 request submitted by the petitioner to reduce the seating capacity of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08 AX-5859 which has a regular stage carriage permit to operate on the route Kodungallur – Vypin – High Court Junction.

¶20

The petitioner’s case is that he is the owner of the above vehicle, which has a seating capacity of 48 seats. The petitioner has submitted Ext P3 request dated 16.01.2023, to reduce the seating capacity. During the interregnum, this Court by Ext P5 judgment had already directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext P3 request. In the meantime, the respondents have intercepted the vehicle on 04.04.2023 and imposed a fine on the petitioner by

¶21

W.P.(C)No.13140/2023

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

Exts P6 & P7 challans. The petitioner proposes to challenge the penalty imposed on him. However, first respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of Ext P3 request. Hence, the writ petition.

¶24

Heard; Sri. G.Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶25

Sri. Sreejith V.S., on instructions, submitted that the first respondent has already rejected Ext P3 request on 10.04.2023. Even before a decision was taken on Ext P3, Exts P6 & P7 orders have been passed. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the fine amounts as per the above challans.

¶26

Sri. G. Hariharan, submitted that the petitioner proposes to challenge Exts P6 & P7 proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner has not received the

¶27

W.P.(C)No.13140/2023

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

order passed in Ext P3. It is only now, the order has been handed over by the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner proposes to challenge the said order.

¶30

Having considered the pleadings and materials

¶31

on record, and taking note of the fact that Ext P3 request has already been considered by the first respondent on 10.04.2023, I am of the view that nothing further survives in the writ petition.

¶32

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

DST/19.06.23

W.P.(C)No.13140/2023

¶39

-:5:-

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF BUS NO.KL-08AX-58`	`REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE` `59`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.KL-77/10/1995 DA` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `PETITIONER RELATING`	`STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT` `TED 08.11.2022 ISSUED BY` `IN THE NAME OF THE` `TO BUS NO.KL-08AX-5859`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `FILED BY THE PETI` `RESPONDENT`	`REQUEST DATED 16.01.2023` `TIONER BEFORE THE 1ST`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `EVIDENCING DESPATCH` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPO`	`COURIER RECEIPT ISSUED` `OF EXHIBIT.P3 REQUEST` `NDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `HON'BLE IN W.P.` `07.02.2023`	`JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS` `(C) NO.4033/2023 ON`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `FINE OF RS.15,000/-`	`CHALLAN DATED 04.04.2023` `RESPONDENT IMPOSING A`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `FINE OF RS.7,500/-`	`CHALLAN DATED 30.01.2023` `RESPONDENT IMPOSING A`

¶42

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Anilkumar , v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar , v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

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

Abhilash.T.P., Vs Canara Bank

Usman K.K. Vs Axis Bank Limited

Joshy M.B. Vs the Branch Manager, Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Binu.T Vs Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Binu C. T. Vs the General Manager

Rohini Cable Network Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb