Rameshkumar v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015/26TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21690 of 2015 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS:- -----------------------
1. RAMESHKUMAR, S/O.PAZHANISWAMI, 4/832, THEKKAMUKKIYOOR, KOTTATHARA, SHOLAYOOR, AGALI, MANNARKKAD.
2. R. RAVI, S/O.RAMASWAMI, MAYILSWAMITHOTTAM, CHAVADIYAR, AGALI, MANNARKKAD.
3. R.RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAMASWAMI, 3/109, COUNDER NIVAS, AGALI, MANNARKKAD.
4. RAMAMOORTHY, S/O.SOLAYA COUNDER, SRG NIVAS, KALLAKKARA ROAD, KOTTATHARA, AGALI, MANANRKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.
2. MOHAMMED BIFFIN, VEETTILAVALAPIL HOUSE, PAROOR, PUNNAYURKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 679 561.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 21690 of 2015 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J --------------------------------------------- WPC No.21690 of 2015 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P1 to P4 representations before issuing temporary permit to the second respondent.
2. The petitioners submitted Exts.P1 to P4 representations as against the issue of temporary permit to the second respondent without settlement of timings. These representations are pending now. The first respondent is proposing to issue temporary permit without considering Exts.P1 to P4.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader in the matter.
On a specific query put by me as to whether the temporary permit has been issued to the second respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners
WPC No.21690/2015 2 answered in the negative.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P1 to P4 representations, after affording the petitioner and the second respondent an opportunity of being heard before issuing temporary permit.
It is hereby made clear that this judgment shall have force only if the temporary permit has not been ordered in favour of the second respondent.
sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE