Madhu vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 9724 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

                    WP(C).No.5204 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER/S:

            MADHU
            S/O.RAMCHANDRAN NAIR, KUZHIPPATT HOUSE,
            CHALAPPURAM ,KOZHIKODE-673 002

            BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
            VADAKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., VADAKARA-673 101

      2     THE SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, CIVIL
            STATION P.O, VADAKARA-673 101

      3     THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023

            BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
            SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5204 OF 2021(A)
                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the holder of the regular permit in

the route Palappally-Kannur. The permit is issued in the

name of one Rijo C.J and the vehicle was taken on lease

from Rijo C.J by the petitioner. Basic permit expired on

30.11.2014 and has been running on the basis of the

temporary permit. By virtue of Draft Notification

published on 15.09.2020, he filed an application for

variation along with Ext.P3 application for temporary

permit on the restricted route of Thrissur-Kozhikode in

respect of vehicle No.KL45S 9396, pending

consideration of the regular application. The grievance

of the petitioner is that in spite of considerable delay,

his application has not been considered.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned

standing counsel for the third respondent - KSRTC, who

has filed a detailed counter. Having considered the WP(C).No.5204 OF 2021(A)

entire facts, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition

by directing the first respondent to take up and consider

his temporary permit application along with application

for variation and pass appropriate orders on it, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner, KSRTC and other objectors, if any, and to file

objections. If the RTA meeting could not be convened

within the above six weeks period, decision shall be

taken by circulation under Rule 130 on the basis of the

written objections if any, filed by the parties and in

accordance with law within the above six weeks period.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.5204 OF 2021(A)

WP(C).No.5204 OF 2021(A)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER DATED 4.9.2019

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.9.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 18.2.2021

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER 18.2.2021

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL