Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2015/1ST MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1576 of 2015 (V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHIFA MANZIL, MADPPIKAVA, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 1576 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT. P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE FOUR MOTHNS TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DTD 12/1/2015 WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL 70/A 878 IN PLACE OF KL-9/M 7454.

EXT. P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DTD 12/1/2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.1576 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of temporary permit application filed at Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that he has sought for temporary permit in the vacancy of another route bus and has only sought for the same till the route bus is brought in, in the regular permit, which is said to be defaulted.

The learned Government Pleader, on instruction submits that there is no defaulted serviced as of now. The regular permit was issued in the route and the vehicle which was endorsed in the permit was released on clearance certificate as early as on 15.10.2012. The permit had expired on 18.03.2013. The renewal application filed was rejected since the

WPC.No.1576/2015 : 2 :

route bus was never replaced in the permit. In such circumstance, there is no vacancy as such in the said route. In such circumstance, the writ petition is devoid of merit. Needless to say the respondent would pass an order on Ext.P1.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge