Viju V.M vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 7100 Ker

W.P.(C) No.4193/2021              1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4193 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONER:

               VIJU V.M.
               AGED 45 YEARS
               S/O MANI, VILANGOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNIKKARA,
               KATTILAPOOVAM P.O.THRISSUR-680 028.

               BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENT:

       1       THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
               PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED Y ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE
               P.O.PALAKKAD-678 001.

       2       THE SECRETARY,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
               COLLECTORATE P.O.PALAKKAD-678 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.4193/2021                   2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

Petitioner is the holder of regular permit in an inter district route which

was valid up to 7/6/2020. Application for renewal was submitted on

8/6/2020 along with an application for condonation of delay. According to

the petitioner, though identical matters were included in the RTA meeting

held on 11/2/2020, the application submitted by the petitioner was not

included.

2. Responding the above, learned senior government pleader

submitted that, since it is an inter district route, report was called from the

RTA, Thrissur and the instruction is awaited. Hence, the matter could not

be boarded in the meeting held on 11/2/2020. The learned counsel for the

petitioner vehemently contended that, the case at hand being one for

renewal of permit, concurrence was not required. It was controverted by

the learned senior Government pleader. I am not inclined to go into that

aspect of the matter. It is seen that report has already been called for.

3. Having considered the above, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition by directing the 2nd respondent to expedite the process of getting

the report from the RTA, Thrissur and to place it before the next meeting

of the RTA. RTA shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of this judgment. If the above meeting is not

likely to be convened, due to any reason beyond the control of the first

respondent, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3

and thereafter depending on its outcome, on Ext. P2 by invoking the

procedure under section 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the above period of six

weeks, on the basis of the materials available on record.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

dpk                                                SUNIL THOMAS

                                                      JUDGE




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO
                       THE PETITIONER DATED 19.5.2018

EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED
                       BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 8.6.2020

EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION DATED
                       8.6.2020