Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41960/2017 of SURESH G Vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ,KOLLAM on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41960 of 2017 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- SURESH G, SREENILAYAM, NEDUMON P.O. ADOOR BY ADV. SMT.K.MOYA KURIAKOSE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 41960 of 2017 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
SURESH G, SREENILAYAM, NEDUMON P.O. ADOOR
BY ADV. SMT.K.MOYA KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ,KOLLAM PIN- 691 001
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41960 of 2017 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 22-02-2017 IN ITEM NO.11.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTAUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 28-09-2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-05-2017 IN WPCNO.16857 OF 2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL----------------------- /TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41960 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be a stage carriage operator andthat he had applied for a fresh regular permit, to conductservice on the route Punalur- Adoor. According to thepetitioner, even though the necessary concurrence has beengranted by the RTA, Pathanamthitta, the respondent refusedto issue a regular permit, but directed the petitioner to submita 'new proposal of timings with sufficient trips in betweenPunalur & Pathanapuram' as a condition precedent forconsidering the application.
2. As per the petitioner, this stand of the respondent iscompletely illegal, since the Transport Authority is empoweredto sanction the application 'with modifications', subject to theproviso to sub section(1) of Section 72 of the Act. Thissubmission is made by Sri.Moya Kuriakose, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner on the assertion that if the authoritysanctions the application with such modifications, it will beopen to the petitioner to challenge it by filing an appeal underSection 89, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.According to the learned counsel, the Authority, by refusing to do so but insisting that the petitioner makes modifications in a new proposal, is actually curtailing his statutory rights to file anappeal against the modification, now suggested by the TransportAuthority.
3. I find sufficient force in the submission of Sri.MoyaKuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I also noticethat this issue has been squarely covered by the judgmentdelivered by another learned Judge of this Court, a copy of whichhas been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P3. I am inrespectful affirmation with the holdings and conclusions of thelearned Judge in the said judgment, and I, therefore, deem itappropriate to order the following.
For reasons afore, I order this writ petition, directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, in termsof sub-section 1 of Section 72 of the Act and to pass appropriateorders thereon, without insisting on the petitioner to make amodified timing proposal. This shall be done by the respondent,within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE