← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/36404/2015disposed of

C.K. Sajeev v. The Regional Transport Authority

2015-12-044 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36404 of 2015 (A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- C.K. SAJEEV, S/O. KUTTAN, CHAKKANALIL HOUSE, SOUTH ADUVASSERY P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR.

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 682 030.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 36404 of 2015 (A) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT ALONG WITH THE TIME SCHEDULE DATED 4/5/10 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA.NO.335/2010 DATED 7/3/1 P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FORWARDING THE REPORT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR DT. 14/5/2010 P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 17/8/15 P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED TIME SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 29/10/14. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.36404 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4 th day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, who submitted Ext.P1 application, for regular permit on the route Vypin - High Court Junction - Paravoor - Manjali - Angamaly - Manjapara with stage carriage bearing KL-07/P 4545. The 1st respondent rejected the application; but the same was allowed in Appeal with a direction to submit a modified proposal, by the Appellate Tribunal, by Ext.P2. In compliance with the direction in Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner had submitted a modified proposal, along with the time-schedule and Ext.P3 report of the field officer. Even though, the 1st respondent has considered the said application in its meeting held on 17.08.2015, adjourned the application, directing the petitioner to submit a modified timeschedule in accordance with D3 circular, detail report

W.P.(C) No.36404 of 2015 -: 2 :- etc. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 modified time-schedule; but again Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner is being adjourned unnecessarily. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to pass orders on Ext.P1, within a specified time.

2.

The learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that if the petitioner had complied with the direction in Ext.P4, certainly, Ext.P1 will be reconsidered in the next meeting.

The above undertaking is recorded and this Writ Petition will stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge