Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41949/2017 of P.V.VIVEK Vs THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER 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. 41949 of 2017 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- P.V.VIVEK, S/O VIJAYAN, PLATHANATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM BY ADV.
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. 41949 of 2017 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
-----------
P.V.VIVEK, S/O VIJAYAN, PLATHANATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM,VAIKOM
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT:-----------
THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM- 686 602
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ
mbr/
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER.EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-36 A 2021.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22-12-2017.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24696/2017 DATED 26-07-2017.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
mbr/
P.S. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41949 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 permit holder for operating a stage carriage with respect to a particular vehicle. Since thatvehicle was not in its operational best, he applied forreplacement of the vehicle with a vehicle of a lesser model butwith higher mechanical efficiency and overall condition bymaking Ext.P3 application. The petitioner says that the samehas not been considered by the competent authority eventhough they are under a statutory obligation to do so.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents.
3. Since I see that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3
application before the respondent who is the competentauthority under the applicable Motor Vehicles Act and Rules Isee no reason why the application should not be directed to beconsidered and disposed of by the said authority.
4. In fact, I notice that these issues have been answered W.P.(c).No.41949 of 2017
in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1466/2017 and I am obligated to follow the ratio in thesaid judgment.
5. I therefore direct the respondent to take up Ext.P3application preferred by the petitioner and consider it on itsmerits and dispose it of after following due procedure, asexpeditiously as possible, but not later than three weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
sm/