High Court of KeralaWP(C)/333/2015disposed of

Tom T.Abraham v. Regional Transport Authority

2015-01-08Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 333 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------- TOM T.ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS, THALAKULATH, MADAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S) :

---------------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 333 of 2015 (N) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT BEARING NO. 6/870/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 28-08-2014.

EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE AND FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT DATED 08-08-2014.

EXHIBIT P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT SUBMITTED ON 23-12-2014.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

==================================== W.P.(C)No.333 of 2015 ==================================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2015.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is aggrieved with the non-renewal of temporary permit already granted. Ext.P1 is the temporary permit granted in the route Changanacherry-Kumily and Ext.P3 is the application now filed for renewal. The temporary permit granted was valid only upto 28.12.2014. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was a person, who had a regular permit in the route and had obtained release of the vehicle after getting a clearance certificate. Petitioner failed to replace the vehicle within time and hence there is no permit as such, as of now, is the contention raised, especially since the permit has been revoked with effect from 9.6.2014.

2. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be issued with temporary permit at this stage, especially since the route is an inter-

W.P.(C)No.333 of 2015 -:2:- district route and concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authority is required. It is also submitted by the learned Government that the matter would be placed in the meeting of the RTA which is to be scheduled in the last week of this month. It is directed that the temporary permit application would be placed before the RTA for consideration in its next meeting. Writ petition is disposed off.

K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.

sl.