Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41909/2017 of PAVITHRAN Vs THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 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. 41909 of 2017 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PAVITHRAN, THAVARANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O.BHOOMIVATHUKKAL,
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. 41909 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
PAVITHRAN, THAVARANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O.BHOOMIVATHUKKAL, VADAKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA- 673 101.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
WP(C).No. 41909 of 2017 (K)
---------------------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-18 H 7747.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20535/2017 DATED 21/6/17.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL
------------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41909 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 leased vehicle of a lessermodel but with higher mechanical efficiency and overallcondition by making Ext.P4 application. The petitioner saysthat the same has not been considered by the competentauthority even though they are under a statutory obligation todo so.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents.
3. Since I see that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4application 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.
W.P.(c).No.41909 of 2017
4. In fact, I notice that these issues have been answered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court inW.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.P4application preferred by the petitioner and consider it on itsmerits and dispose it of after following due procedure advertingto the road worthiness of the vehicle and its over all conditionsnotwithstanding whether the vehicle is leased or otherwise, 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/