Disposed

Xx v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/19608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged restrictive parking conditions and a rejection order in their contract carriage permit. The court set aside the rejection order as it was passed by an incompetent authority and directed the competent body to reconsider the petition within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction issued to 5th respondent to reconsider petitioner's request and pass fresh order within one month.

Xx Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶4

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

XX
XX

¶7

BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN – 695 001.

¶10

2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN – 670 002.

¶11

3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR, PIN – 670 002.

¶12

4 THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001.

¶13

5 THE CHAIRMAN TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) (MAYOR KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ) KANNUR (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)

¶14

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
M.MEENA JOHN
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

JOBY JOSEPH-GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶21

--------------------------------------------

¶22

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶23

--------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2023

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed

¶27

for the following reliefs:-

¶28

“i) issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the restrictive conditions in regard to the parking and picking passengers in Varam areas in Exhibits P4, contract carriage permit, declaring the condition is illegal;

¶29

ii) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the Ext.P5 rejection order issued by the 2^nd respondent being illegal.

¶30

iii) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner and effect variations in Exhibit P4 contract carriage permits, permitting the petitioner to park and pick passengers within the Kannur Municipal Corporation area with parking place at

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶33

Kannur town and railway station, in the light of the decision reported in 2014(3) KLT 341.

¶34

iv) Dispense with filing the translation of vernacular documents.

¶35

v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper as on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶36

The petitioner is seeking variation in

¶37

Ext.P4 contract carriage permit, permitting the petitioner to park and pick passengers within the Kannur Municipal Corporation area with parking place at Kannur town and railway station.

¶38

The Learned Counsel for the Kannur Municipal Corporation submits that the decision has to be taken by the regulatory committee headed by the Mayor of the Kannur Municipal Corporation in respect of the reliefs sought by the petitioner.

¶39

The Learned Government Pleader also

¶40

¶41

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶42

submits that direction may be issued to consider the application of the petitioner by the additional 5^th respondent.

¶43

In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the additional 5^th respondent to take decision on the request of the petitioner. Since the impugned order Ext.P5 has not been passed by the competent authority, i.e, the additional 5^th respondent, the same is set aside and the direction is issued to the 5^th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of one month.

¶44

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶46

rpr

¶47

WP(C) NO. 19608 OF 2023

¶48

¶49

¶50

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P4

¶52

TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/03/2023

Xx v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xx v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Sameer T.V Vs the Traffic Regulatory Committee

C.K. Sadanandan, Vs the Tahsildar

Sajeesh K Alias Sajeesh Kodoth, Vs Tahasildar

M/S. White Metals Asperos, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Indira Devi, Vs the Secretary