High Court of KeralaWP(C)/15671/2015disposed of

Dileep Kumar v. The Secretary

2015-05-27Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2015/6TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 15671 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.MANOHARAN PILLAI, PREMRAJ BHAVAN, KILIMANNOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695601.

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT:

--------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRNASPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), ATTINGAL - 695101.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 15671 of 2015 (H) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.05.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.10502/2014 DATED 08.04.2014 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P2 application, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2.

The petitioner is an existing operator on the route Mottakuzhy - Attingal. The petitioner alleges that the permit is issued in respect of stage carriage No.KL 16 D/600 and the permit is valid till 6.6.2017. On account of bad condition of the vehicle, the petitioner applied for clearance certificate by retaining the vehicle under suspended animation and acordingly clearance certificate was granted. The petitioner furhter alleges that in order to resume service, he submitted an application for replacement on 20.5.2015. Admittedly, the incoming vehicle is a 2003 model vehicle and on account of the above, the respondent has not granted replacement. The petitioner submitted that make and model of the vehicle is not a sufficient reason to deny replacement. What is to be looked

-2into is the viability of the vehicle as the relevant factor for considering the application for replacement. As per Rule 174 (2), it is the discretion of the authority to reject the application for replacement. If the incoming vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced, the same is not a ground to deny the replacement. If the incoming vehicle, though aged more, is fit in all respects than the original vehicle, then the authority has to exercise its discretion in the matter and grant replacement. But the respondent is reluctant to consider the application on the ground that the incoming vehicle is not later than the outgoing vehicle, it is alleged.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter. Considering the nature of the prayer sought for in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of the directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To

-3facilitate an early action, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition as well as the copy of this judgment before the respondent at the earliest. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Scl.

The vehicle No."KL-16 D/600" occurring in the 3rd line of paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 27/05/2015 in W.P.(C) No.15671/2015 is corrected and substituted as "KL-16-D6400", vide order dated 11/06/2015 in I.A 7827/2015. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)