Disposed

Najeeb, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC5 Mar 2024WP(C)/2835/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stage carriage operator whose renewal application was pending sought a direction to issue Temporary Permit per Tribunal direction, after the RTA rejected his application without notice. The Court noted an interim order had already secured issuance of a Temporary Permit and disposed of the writ petition, directing future reissue applications be considered in accordance with law subject to the pendi

What the court decided

AI extract

Najeeb, Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2835 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

NAJEEB, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, 2/1065, VALIYAMAVINNAZHIKATH NEERAVIL, THRIKKADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691601

¶7

BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001 2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.2835/2024

: 2 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of March , 2024

¶16

The petitioner is an existing operator on the route Kureepuzha-Panamukku-Thanni Temple. The application for renewal and replacement was rejected by the 1^st respondent which was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. So, now, the application for renewal is pending and during the pendency of the application for renewal, the petitioner was operating service on the same route with stage carriage bearing No.KL-09V-3374 in the timing of the petitioner's stage carriage KL-11N-3600.

¶17

The present Temporary Permit was valid till 21.11.2023. Though the petitioner had applied for reissue of Temporary Permit, it was rejected by the 1^st respondent without notice and without hearing the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed to grant and issue Temporary Permit. But, no action has

¶18

W.P.(C) No.2835/2024

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

been taken by the respondent in the matter. According to the 2^nd respondent, it is not possible to issue Temporary Permit in compliance of the direction issued by the Tribunal. This view of the 2^nd respondent is highly illegal and virtually disobeying the direction issued by the Statutory Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to grant and issue Temporary Permit forthwith.

¶21

When this writ petition came up for admission,

¶22

this Court passed an interim order on 30.01.2024 directing the 2^nd respondent to issue Temporary Permit to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P10 within a period of one week. It was made clear that the orders shall be effective for a period of 40 days from the date of issue. This Court made it clear that issuance of such Temporary Permit will be subject to the orders, if any, to be passed by the Tribunal in the Revision Petition.

¶23

Senior Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner has been issued with a Temporary Permit for the period from

¶24

W.P.(C) No.2835/2024

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

06.02.2024 to 16.03.2024. The said issuance will be subject

¶27

to the outcome of the Revision Petition filed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above facts, I am of the view that no orders are necessary in the writ petition. Needless to say, after the expiry of the present Temporary Permit, if the petitioner makes an application for reissue of Temporary Permit, the same shall also be considered in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the Revision Petition filed by the respondents.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.2835/2024

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2835/2024

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
	22.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE RTA
	REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT.
Exhibit P 2	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2020 SUBMITTED
	BY THE PETITIONER MODIFYING THE EXISTING ROUTE.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA 195 OF 2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 31.05.2022.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 1.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT.
Exhibit P5	. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN MP NO. 2547 OF 2023 IN MVAA NO. 193 OF 2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 30.10.2023.
Exhibit P6	TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 4.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VALID TILL 21.11.2023.
Exhibit P7	- APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 8.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8	- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 37642 OF 2023 DATED 13.11.2023 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P9	PROCEEDING DATED 14.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT BY CIRCULATION OF PAPERS.
Exhibit P10	INTERIM ORDER IN MP NO. 25 OF 2024 IN MVAA NO. 2 OF 2024 ISSUED BY THE
	STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 6.01.2024.

Najeeb, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Najeeb, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lenin Kumar, Vs Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank

Anas .a Vs the Branch Manager

Sreekala Vs the Authorized Officer

Rajasekhara Kurup Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government of Kerala

Nafeesa Vs Manjeri Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Merlin Binoy Vs the Authorized Officer