← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/13966/2015disposed of

Abdul Jabbar v. The Regional Transport Authority

2015-05-20Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015/30TH VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13966 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- ABDUL JABBAR, SHAMEER MANZIL, SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHARAM P.O., KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. PIN-691 001

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. PIN-691 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 13966 of 2015 (U) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.

TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FIELD OFFICER. EXT.P2.

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/2/2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13966 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is the operator of an existing stage carriage between Puthensanketham - Bharanikavu, has applied for variation of permit to operate between Puthensankethem to Kottarakara, extending the route from Bharanikavu to Kottarakkara. On the basis of the application, the Field Officer had conducted an enquiry in the matter. According to the petitioner, as per the report, there is no objectionable overlapping of the notified sector on account of the variation of permit as applied for and the application submitted by the petitioner does not offend any notified route, and therefore, there is no violation of Clause 19 of the Scheme.

2.

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, which calls for a further report. According to the petitioner, the said procedure is

W.P.(C) No. 13966 of 2015 ..2..

against the Scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. 3.

Today, when the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the Regional Transport Authority to take a final decision in the application submitted by him.

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to place the application of the petitioner along with original report before the 1st respondent, who, on receipt of the same, shall take a final decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the same.

It shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent at the earliest for a speedy action.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-