Partly allowed

M.C.Somasundaran v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC6 Jan 2023WP(C)/302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of the Respondents regarding his applications for permit renewal and vehicle replacement. The court directed the RTO to consider the renewal application expeditiously and subsequently address the replacement application within one month of each decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the renewal application within one month and the 2nd respondent to consider the replacement application within one month of the disposal of the former.

M.C.Somasundaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 302 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.C.SOMASUNDARAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O.CHATHUNNI, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,, THUMBOOR JUNCTION, THUMBOOR.P.O.,KOTTANELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680662 BY ADVS. M.JITHESH MENON P.G.MAHESHKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682030

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE SR.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶14

06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 302 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

=================== WP(C) No. 302 OF 2023

¶19

===================

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2023

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers;

¶23

“ i . To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1 st respondent to consider Exhibit P2 application for renewal and P5 application for replacement submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a short time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, if necessary, by resorting to circulation of papers under Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

¶24

ii . To issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” (SIC)

¶25

The petitioner was the holder of a regular permit to operate on the route Ernakulam High Court- Kodungalloor via Cherai, Maliankara as a mofussil service on the strength of a regular permit, issued in respect of stage carriage KL-8/Z 9700 and valid till 9-5- 2022. The petitioner submitted application for renewal of permit in time on 19.04.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that, he could not operate the service during the Covid

¶26

WP(C) NO. 302 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

pandemic and after the restrictions were lifted, the said vehicle covered by the permit namely KL 8 Z 9700 which is a 2003 model vehicle had become dilapidated and hence the petitioner replaced the stage carriage KL 8 Z 9700 with SC KL-5/AD 3738. It is also stated that the petitioner was issued temporary permit in respect of the newly purchased vehicle. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not considering Ext.P2 application for renewal and Ext.P5 application for replacement. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶30

After hearing both sides, I think, there can be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and thereafter, based on that decision, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 application.

¶31

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶32

There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2, as expeditiously

¶33

WP(C) NO. 302 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

as possible, at any rate within a period of one months from the

¶36

date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶37

Based on the decision in Ext.P2, the 2^nd respondent will pass appropriate orders in Ext.P5 within a period of one month from the date on which Ext.P2 is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

SAAP

¶42

WP(C) NO. 302 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 302/2023

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT WITH WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS CONDUCTING SERVICE ON THE ROUTE IN QUESTION DATED 9-8-2018 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19-4-2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-5/AD.3738 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-5/AD.3738 TO OPERATE IN PLACE OF PETITIONER'S OWN SERVICE DATED 8-11-2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION IN FORM P.V.A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14-11-2022

¶46

//True Copy// PA to Judge

M.C.Somasundaran v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Somasundaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaseera Shafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Reshmi Vs District Collector

Dipak Gogoi Vs the Assistant Labour Officer

M/S Hotel Meriya, Represented by Its Managing Partner Jojo Joseph Vs the District Collector & District Magistrate

Rajeevan P.K. Vs the Secretary

Anilkumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer