← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/15838/2015disposed of

Umarul Farook v. Teh Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-05-28Honourable 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 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015/7TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 15838 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- UMARUL FAROOK, S/O.MUSTHAFA, THOPPIL VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM.

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

---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 15838 of 2015 (B) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P1 :

COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 27/2/15 OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.

EXT.P2 :

COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 20/5/15 WITH CHALLAN AND COVERING LETTER.

EXT.P3 :

THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/5/2015 IN WPC NO 14286 OF 2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15838 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application in the light of Ext.P3 judgment.

2.

The petitioner applied for regular permit on the route Meeyannoor - Ithikara. The petitioner alleges that the Regional Transport Authority considered the application in the meeting held on 27.02.2015 and the same was granted subject to settlement of timings. Though he produced records of stage carriage No.KL-04P/509 in time and requested to issue the permit without any delay, the permit is not yet issued; it is alleged. Since the petitioner's vehicle is lying idle after payment of tax, he moved an application with a covering letter for grant of temporary permit on the same route, pending issuance of regular permit. According to the petitioner, the issuance of temporary permit is highly beneficial to the travelling public. He further alleges that he had completed all legal formalities and on account of the

..2..

lethargic approach of the respondent, the regular permit is not issued to him.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application within the time frame in the light of Ext.P3 judgment.

In the light of the submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application in the light of Ext.P3 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two weeks 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 before the respondent at the earliest. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-