Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41954/2017 of RAGHAVAN NAIR Vs THE SECRETARY, RTA 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. 41954 of 2017 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- RAGHAVAN NAIR, AREEKAL HOUSE, MADAVOOR, MUTTANCHERY P.O. NARIKUNNI- 673 585.
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. 41954 of 2017 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
-----------
RAGHAVAN NAIR, AREEKAL HOUSE,MADAVOOR, MUTTANCHERY P.O.NARIKUNNI- 673 585.
BY ADV. SMT.K.MOYA KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT:-----------
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE- 673 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA
mbr/
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41954 of 2017 (T)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 03-06-2022.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 22-12-2017.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-07-2017 IN
WA NO.1466 OF 2017
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
mbr/
P.S. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41954 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.P2 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.P2
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.41954 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.P2application 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/