Kerala High Court
WP(C)/42080/2017 of MUHAMMED RIYAS T Vs THE SECRETARY 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. 42080 of 2017 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MUHAMMED RIYAS T, S/O. MOIDUNNI T, ALIF, NANGAM VEETTIL, KOKKIVALAVU,
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. 42080 of 2017 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
MUHAMMED RIYAS T, S/O. MOIDUNNI T, ALIF, NANGAM VEETTIL, KOKKIVALAVU, FEROKE COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (RTO) KOZHIKODE-673 020. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (RTO) KOZHIKODE-673 020.
2.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT ATHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-673 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-673 020
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 42080 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH ITS NO. P.ST. 11/422/1994
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 14.12.2017.14.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 14.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.5.2017 IN WPC NO. 15801/2017.15801/2017.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.7.2017 IN WA. NO. 1466/2017.1466/2017.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.42080 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.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be a permit holder for operating astage 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 by makingExt.P2 application. The petitioner says that the same has notbeen considered by the competent authority even though theyare under a statutory obligation to do so.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Since I see that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2application before the 1[st] respondent who is the competentauthority under the applicable Motor Vehicles Act and Rules I seeno reason why the application should not be directed to beconsidered and disposed of by the said authority.
W.P.(C) No.42080/2017
4. In fact, I notice that these issues have been answered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court inWrit Appeal No.1466 of 2017 and I am obligated to follow theratio in the said judgment.
I therefore direct the 1[st] 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.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
smp