← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/25390/2015disposed of

Aisha v. The Secretary, Rta, Kollam

2015-08-21Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25390 of 2015 (W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ AISHA, D/O.NANU, AMPALATHIVILA VEEDU, NEDUMPANA P O, KOLLAM.

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

----------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, PIN 691001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 25390 of 2015 (W) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD 27/2/2015 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO 20953/2015 DTD 16/7/2015 P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DTD 6/8/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the non issue of temporary permit, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2.

The petitioner alleges that though the authority granted regular permit, the same is not yet issued by the respondent due to the delay in settling the timings. On account of the above, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.20959/2015 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, RTA to convene a timing conference and settle timings within a period of three weeks. She further alleges that in spite of the direction issued by this Court, the permit has not been issued after settling the timings and the vehicle is lying idle after payment of tax. According to the petitioner, there is flagrant violation of the directions issued by this Court. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for temporary

..2..

permit on the same route. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader.

4.

This Court, as per interim order dated 21.08.2015, directed the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for temporary permit and issue positive orders if the same is otherwise in order. However, when the petitioner produced the same before the authority concerned, they pointed out a mistake in the interim relief sought for.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to Exts.P1 to P3, would submit that the petitioner was seeking permission on the route between Anchalmoodu and Mevaram. However, because of the typographical mistake, the permit sought for, as per the interim order, was on the route between Karikode Old Bus Stand and Kottiyam.

As the petitioner has the support of Exts.P1 to P3 to

..3..

substantiate his claim, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to allow Ext.P3, which contains the correct route, in the light of this judgment 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/-