← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/15805/2015disposed of

Saseendran v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-06-04Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 15805 of 2015 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- SASEENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, VALIAPOIL, OLAT P.O., TRIKARIPUR.

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

------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARGOD-671 121.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 15805 of 2015 (A) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT WITH CHALLAN.

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL WITH CHALLAN. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)6606 OF 2015.

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15805 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the denial of replacement for stage carriage and renewal by the respondent on the ground of delay in producing the records of the vehicle, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2.

The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route between Cheemeni and Alakkad via Payyannur and Korom; and the permit was issued in respect of stage carriage No.KL-14 F/4797. The petitioner alleges that on account of mechanical complaint of the vehicle, he obtained clearance certificate by retaining the permit under suspended animation. The petitioner applied for replacement with a suitable vehicle, which has not been granted by the respondent for the reason that he has failed to produce the records of the incoming vehicle within the stipulated period after obtaining clearance certificate. According to the petitioner, the delay in producing the records of the incoming vehicle is not at all a reason to deny replacement. It is in this

W.P.(C) No. 15805 of 2015 ..2..

context, the petitioner has approached before this Court. 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter. 4.

When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 & P2 applications in the light of Ext.P3 judgment within a time frame.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 & P2 in the light of Ext.P3 judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate an early action, the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce a copy of this judgment as well as a copy of this writ petition and a copy of Ext.P3 before the respondent at the earliest.

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