Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41957/2017 of A.N.VASANTHY Vs THE 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. 41957 of 2017 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- A.N.VASANTHY, W/O. K.V. SATHYAN, KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM P.O.,
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. 41957 of 2017 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
A.N.VASANTHY, W/O. K.V. SATHYAN, KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 003. THRISSUR - 680 003.
2. THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 003.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.4417 OF 2016 AND OTHER WRIT PETITIONS DATED 11.2.2016.OTHER WRIT PETITIONS DATED 11.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT.EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.30002 OF 2016 DATED 6.10.2016EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.30002 OF 2016 DATED 6.10.2016
EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.THE PETITIONER.
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.32437 OF 2016 DATED 6.10.2016.DATED 6.10.2016.EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. THRISSUR TAKENBY CIRCULATION AND COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDEENDT.G/11772/2016.BY CIRCULATION AND COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDEENDT.G/11772/2016.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23.5.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.24735 OF 2017.EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT TO S/C KL-07 AP 3832 INSTEAD OF KL-4/M-8121EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT TO S/C KL-07 AP 3832 INSTEAD OF KL-4/M-8121
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL---------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41957 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims that he has already been grantedregular permit on the route Kumaranchira Ambalam -Karalam
Page 2 of 3
- Irinjalakuda-Moonnupeedika. According to him, he hadinitially offered a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-4/M-8121; but that, since the regular permit was granted to himafter a long drawn litigation, the vehicle had deteriorated inits condition and that it is also nearing 15 years of itspermissible operational age. He says that he has, therefore,procured another vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07 AP3832 and he had requested to the competent authorities toissue regular permit to the said vehicle. According to thepetitioner, even though the regular permit has already beengranted, the authorities are refusing to issue the permit, onthe ground that the vehicle has now been altered. As per thepetitioner, this stand of the authority is directly against thejudgment of this Court reported in Vinod v. R.T.A. Kannur [ 1999 (2) KLJ 1092].
2. I have heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel
[ 1999 (2) KLJ 1092].
2. I have heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the reason for replacing thevehicle with a new one is only because, the litigation leading tothe grant of regular permit was a prolonged one, within whichtime the vehicle had deteriorated in its condition. The learnedGovernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondentsconcedes that since the petitioner has now obtained a newermodel vehicle to replace the older one, there would not be anylegal impediment in his application being considered in terms ofthe judgment referred above.
In such circumstances, I order this writ petition, directingthe 2[nd] respondent to take up the application of petitioner,appended to this writ petition as Ext.P9, and to consider thesame in terms of law, adverting to the judgment referred aboveand to consider the issue of regular permit, within a period ofthree weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Needless to say, all consequential proceedings will be issued bythe competent authority without any delay, thereafter.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…