Kerala High Court
WP(C)/10713/2025 of RASHEED K.I., Vs THE SECRETARY, on 27 March 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 10713 OF 2025 PETITIONER: RASHEED K.I., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KUPPASSERIYIL, KUMBANKALLU, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10713 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RASHEED K.I.,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. IBRAHIM, KUPPASSERIYIL, KUMBANKALLU, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685585.
BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002.
SIJO MATHEW,
VAKKAYIL HOUSE, PADUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686564.
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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 is the registered owner of a bus bearing registration No.KL-38F-4729. The petitioner had leased out the vehicle to the 2nd respondent, who was using the vehicle to operate a permit issued to him. According to the petitioner, the vehicle has now been returned the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is unable to use the vehicle on account of the fact that the permit issued to the 2nd respondent is still attached to the vehicle. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent and seeks expeditious consideration of the said representation.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that after receiving Ext.P4, the 1st respondent had issued notice to the 2nd respondent and also to the petitioner. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent failed to show up and therefore no final decision has been taken on Ext.P4. It is also submitted that in normal circumstances, the permit also has to be surrendered or a replacement application in respect of the said permit has to be filed before the vehicle can be detached from the permit.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits in reply that the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the vehicle can be detached from the permit only if the permit is surrendered or a replacement is offered in respect of the permit is untenable. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 in accordance with the law and after hearing all affected parties, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the observations in this Judgment are only for noticing the contentions raised before this Court. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10713/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-38F-4729 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 03-01-2024 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-38F-4729 DATED 19-01-2024 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-02-2024