Kerala High Court
Gracy Kurian vs The Regional Transport Authority on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.4905 OF 2021(K)
PETITIONER:
GRACY KURIAN
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. KURIAN, VALLOMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR P.
O., THODUPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE P. O., IDUKKI - PAINAVU -
685603.
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE P.
O., IDUKKI - PAINAVU - 685603.
3 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695023.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4905 OF 2021(K)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of March 2021
The petitioner herein was the permit holder in
relation to a route with respect to vehicle No.KL-38 7681.
After the expiry of the permit period, an application was
filed for renewal which was taken up by the RTA, Idukki
on 19.10.2016 and thereafter, adjourned for
consideration of the application awaiting concurrence
from the sister authority. It is stated that in the
meanwhile, application for temporary permit was filed for
restricting the route to 133 kms within the permitted
route as per the original permit.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his
application submitted as Ext.P3, has not been taken up
and considered. The learned Senior Government Pleader
on instructions submitted that during the pendency of the
application which came up for consideration in 2016, the
petitioner obtained a temporary permit and plied the
WP(C).No.4905 OF 2021(K)
vehicle till 22.11.2018. Thereafter, neither the tax was
paid nor the vehicle was plied. The learned Senior
Government Pleader also contended that since, the
present application submitted for renewal of permit
accompanied by a request for limiting the distance, it can
only be considered as a fresh application.
3. Consequently, present application for
temporary permit under Section 87 (1)(d) can only be
considered as one under Section 87 (1)(c). It was also
contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the
K.S.R.T.C. that his objections is liable to be heard while
considering the above application.
4. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose
of the writ petition directing the second respondent to
place the matter before the first respondent or competent
authority, as the case may be, which shall consider the
application after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the K.S.R.T.C. as well as affected parties as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
six weeks and if for any reason, the matter is not likely to
WP(C).No.4905 OF 2021(K)
be taken up within six weeks, decision shall be taken on
the basis of the written objections, if any, filed by the
K.S.R.T.C and other objectors by circulation invoking Rule
130 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. It is also made clear that
the petitioner shall pay the tax arrears, if any,
accumulated during the above period.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/12-3
WP(C).No.4905 OF 2021(K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
15.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT
APPLICATION DATED 12.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER
12.02.2021.
RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
