Travelmate Solutions vs The Joint Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10969 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

 WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA,
                          1943

                   WP(C).No.7313 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER:

              TRAVELMATE SOLUTIONS
              1ST FLOOR, KSRTC ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680
              307, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
              DANISH DAVIS

              BY ADVS.
              SMT.P.ASHA
              SMT.M.VANAJA

RESPONDENT:

              THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
              MINI CIVIL STATION, CHALAKUDY-680 307

              SRI.K.P HARISH,SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7313 OF 2021(L)      2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April 2021

The petitioner herein is the owner of a contract carriage

with Registration No.KL 64/G 2022 which has a seating

capacity of 14 seats. According to the petitioner, for the

convenience of the passengers, the petitioner proposed to

change one seat. A request was made on the ground that the

present seating capacity is 13+1 and does not give any

sufficient comfort to the passengers and therefore, it is

required. Ext.P2 is still pending without any orders being

passed.

2. The Senior Government Pleader invited my

attention to RC book of the vehicle, which show that the

seating capacity is 14 and not 13+1, as suggested by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered this, in

the absence of any specific provision which enables the

petitioner to alter the number of seats by removal of a seat

other than by way of replacement of the vehicle, the petitioner

is not legally permissible. Hence, I find no reason to give any

direction to the respondent invoking the jurisdiction under

Section 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition fails

and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE LEK

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK WITH ITS CONTRACT CARRIAGE VEHICLE KL 64/ G

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER THE RESPONDENT DATED 4.3.2021