Disposed

Leelamma George v. the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Kerala HC11 Jan 2024WP(C)/392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular and temporary stage carriage permits on route Kodungoor-Pala after surrender of an existing permit; her application wrongly stated the vehicle registration mark. Court directed respondents to consider corrected applications and pass orders within fixed time limits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider corrected permit applications: regular permit within two months by 1st respondent; temporary permit within two weeks by 2nd respondent.

Leelamma George Vs the Regional Transport Authority… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 392 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

LEELAMMA GEORGE
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O GEORGE THOTTUCHALIL HOUSE,
ANICADU P.O, PULICKATHODU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN – 689589

¶7

BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KERALA, PIN – 686002

¶11

SRI.SREEJITH V.S-GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO.392 OF 2024

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2024

¶17

The petitioner submitted an application for grant of Regular Permit to operate service on the route Kodungoor-

¶18

Pala as per Ext.P1 under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before the respondents. The Permit is sought in the surrendered vacancy of another service. Pending consideration of Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of Temporary Permit also to operate service on the above said route in the vacancy of KL-05U-4352 due to surrender of the Original permit.

¶19

The petitioner states that the route is now kept

¶20

vacant and the route passes through an interior ill served area, where there are no sufficient services at all. For the prompt and convenient dispatch of business, the power to

¶21

WP(C) NO.392 OF 2024

¶22

3

¶23

grant Temporary Permit is already delegated to the 2^nd respondent under Rule 133(1)(j) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and therefore the 2^nd respondent can grant Temporary Permit on the above said route by considering Ext.P2 application. But so far no orders have been passed by the respondents and thereby the petitioner is put to irreparable injury and hardship and the travelling public is also put to inconvenience, contends the petitioner.

¶24

Government Pleader submitted that if a corrected application for Permit is received and pending, the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶27

The issue involved in this writ petition is that in the application for Regular Permit in respect of a Stage Carriage submitted by the petitioner under Rule 143(e) of the Motor

¶28

WP(C) NO.392 OF 2024

¶29

¶30

Vehicle Rules as evidenced by Ext.P1, the registration mark of the vehicle was written as KL-05U-4352. It was a mistake committed by the petitioner. The petitioner wanted Permit in respect of a vehicle bearing No.KL-37-5004. The petitioner submits that corrected applications have already been submitted.

¶31

In view of the above, the applications for Permits being statutory applications, the competent authority has to consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon, within a reasonable time.

¶32

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if the petitioner has submitted corrected application in the place of Ext.P1, the same may be considered by the 1^st respondent and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months and if Ext.P2 application for Temporary Permit is corrected and submitted, the same should be considered by the 2^nd respondent and

¶33

WP(C) NO.392 OF 2024

¶34

¶35

orders should be passed thereon in accordance with law,

¶36

within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.392 OF 2024

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 392/2024

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER 12.12.2023
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2023
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF CORRECTED COPY OF THE
EXHIBIT P1 DATED 12.12.2023

Leelamma George v. the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelamma George v. the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajas T Vs Kerala Bank,Represented by Its Authorized Officer

K.K.Manoj Vs the Authorized Officer

Alex John Prasad Vs Union of India

Shajeer A.P Vs The Manager

Anil Ram Vs the Authorized Officer

Shaji K P, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Limited