Sudheesh.T.S vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 9279 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.4359 OF 2021(T)


PETITIONER/S:

            SUDHEESH.T.S,
            AGED 38 YEARS
            S/O SUBRAMIAN, THEROTH HOUSE,
            BEHIND CARMEL SCHOOL, PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.JITHESH MENON
            SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI)
            SRI.R.BRIJESH
            SRI.P.G.MAHESHKUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
             MINI CIVIL STATION, NORTH PARUR, PIN-683 513.

      2     THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
            MALIPPURAM P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 511.

            R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENZIR
            R1 SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4359 OF 2021(T)
                                   2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of

autorickshaw No.KL-42/F.3612. He was granted a

permit to operate in all fit roads in Ernakulam District.

However, in the above permit, the place of parking in

column No.10 was denoted as available parking place at

Elamkunnapuzha Panchayath under 118, 122 of MV Act.

According to the petitioner, in his application, he had

requested for Valappu which was the parking allotted to

his autorickshaw earlier. This creates confusion, since

the specific place where he is expected to park the

vehicle is not clarified. By prescribing the "available

parking at Elamkunnapuzha", he is disabled from parking

in any parking place and within the area of Panchayath.

Accordingly, Ext.P5 application was submitted.

2. Learned senior Government Pleader on

instructions submitted that the petitioner should file an

application for variation, which has not been filed. I feel

that rather than filing an application for variation, it is a WP(C).No.4359 OF 2021(T)

question of the authority prescribing the specific parking

place, where the petitioner is expected to park the

vehicle. Of course, in Ext.P5 he has preferred Valappu,

which was allotted to him, while he was holding vehicle

No.KL-42/J.3980. Since that vehicle has been disposed

of and the permit brought to an end, the petitioner

cannot as of right claim that parking place.

3. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose

of the Writ Petition itself, directing the first respondent to

prescribe the specific parking place for the petitioner's

vehicle. The authority shall fix the parking place, where

the vehicle of the petitioner is expected to be parked. R1

shall also take into consideration the advice of the Traffic

Regulatory Authority of the Panchayath, if so required.

The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

R.AV SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE WP(C).No.4359 OF 2021(T)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.6.2019

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR FRESH PERMIT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL-42/F.6312.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE KL-

42/F.6312 DATED 23.9.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.2.2021 WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6.2.2021

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL