Sahad v. The Regional Transport Authority
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36800 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
-------------------------- SAHAD, S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O INDIANOOR PONMALA, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 676 505
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36800 of 2015 (Y) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE TIMINGS AND TRIPS SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24-07-2015 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE THALAKAPPU-KOTTAKKAL-KADAMPUZHA DATED 09-10-2015 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO 31690/2015 DATED 16-10-2015 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3-11-2015 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO 24 OF THE MEETING DATED 29-09-2015 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO.33 GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT DATED 29-09-2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS
K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No. 36800 of 2015-Y ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 08th day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator who filed Ext. P1 application for grant of a regular permit to operate service on the route in Thalakappu - Kottukkal - Kadampuzha. According to the petitioner, after necessary enquiry the said application was included for consideration by the first respondent in meeting held on 21.09.2015 and the matter was heard on 21.09.2015 and thereafter it was adjourned, but no final order has been passed so far. 2.
During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 application seeking temporary permit and this court by Ext. P3 judgment directed the respondent to pass orders on Ext. P2 application within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment. Immediately, after passing of Ext. P3 judgment, Ext. P1 application seeking regular permit has come up for consideration and no order has been passed, pursuant to
W.P. (C) No. 36800 of 2015-Y 2 Ext. P3, on an expectation that the order can be passed immediately on Ext. P1 application, seeking regular permit. But, thereafter Ext.P5 order was passed requiring the petitioner to produce a modified proposal. However, thereafter, no order has been passed either on Ext. P1 or Ext. P2, so far. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition.
3.
The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that on receipt of Ext. P3 judgment, the petitioner was heard and he was asked to produce a modified proposal as there were objections from other operators. But, thereafter, the petitioner has not produced the modified proposal and in that circumstance the respondents could not pass orders, on Ext. P2 application. 4.
It stands admitted that at present the petitioner has neither regular permit nor temporary permit, even though he has been pursuing with the matter for a long time. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader submit different reasons for the same. But those reasons are not discernible from any of
W.P. (C) No. 36800 of 2015-Y 3 the material available on record before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to make any observation on the reasons for not passing any final order so far either on Ext. P1 or on Ext. P2.
5.
However, having regard to the fact that neither the regular permit nor the temporary permit has been granted to the petitioner, so far, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, provided that the petitioner shall produce a new proposal, within a period of one week, from today. The writ petition is disposed of.
K. HARILAL, JUDGE DCS