Udayakumar E.K. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/8TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WA.No. 479 of 2015 () IN WP(C).1384/2015 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1384/2015 DATED 05-02-2015 .................

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

----------------------------- UDAYAKUMAR E.K., AGED 53 YEARS S/O E.P. KRISHNAN, UDAYA DRIVING SCHOOL OPP. N.G.O. QUARTERS, KALLEPPULLY PALAKKAD-678 018 RESIDING AT SANTHI NILAYAM CHIRAKKAD, MUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678 013 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, 2ND FLOOR, TRNAS TOSERS VAZHUKADE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD-678 001.

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 479 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. He challenges the judgment dated 05.02.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1384 of 2015.

2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 memo by virtue of which his application for renewal of license to run a Motor Driving School has been rejected, based on Circular No.27/2013 of Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram stating that as per the inspection report the petitioner's institution does not comply with the conditions specified in the said Circular. The main contention urged by the petitioner was that he had filed an application as evidenced by Ext.P3 on 30.08.2013 for renewal of the license. But the same was not considered, as a result of which he had given reminder as per Ext.P4 dated 13.10.2014. It is referring to the same that Ext.P5 had been passed, therefore, it is contended that his

WA No. 479 of 2015 -:2:- application should not have been considered on the basis of Ext.P6 Circular which came after the petitioner submitting application for renewal. The learned Single Judge found that since applicatio n for renewal was considered at the time when the Circular was in force, there was justification on the part of the Regional Transport Officer to have relied on Circular No.27/2013. We do not think that the said finding is in any way illegal. In the said circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

ttb/27/02