Vasanthy A.N v. The Regional Transport Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2015/30TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21531 of 2015 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- A.N. VASANTHY, W/O.SATHYAN, KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 21531 of 2015 (N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A THRISSUR DATED 12-3-2015. P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED TIMING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's request in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the modified time schedule subject to the timings along with the regular permit. 2.

The petitioner was the applicant for the grant of a regular permit on the route between Kumaran Chira Ambalam, Karalam, Irinjalakkuda, Moonupeedika via Chemmanada Road, Abhayabhavan, Irinjalakuda Civil Lane and Moonupeedika Centre. The petitioner alleges that he preferred an application for regular permit and the same was considered by the RTA and it was deferred for an enquiry to verify whether the time schedule proposed by the petitioner was in terms with D3 circular. The petitioner has now submitted a modified time schedule. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

-2and the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter. 4.

The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents is only because of the non-production of the relevant documents by the petitioner before the respondents.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce the relevant documents in support of the claim before the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of submitting the same, the petitioner's request shall be considered within a period of two weeks thereafter, after affording the petitioner and the affected parties an opportunity of being heard.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

-3Scl.