Arun Chandran.R vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 9886 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.6488 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

               ARUN CHANDRAN.R
               AGED 34 YEARS
               S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KIZHAKKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
               ETTIMOOD, VATTATHAMARA P.O., KADAKKAL.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

               THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
               ATTINGAL, ANSAR COMPLEX, TB JUNCTION-HOSPITAL
               JUNCTION ROAD, MAMAM, ATTINGAL-695 101.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6488 OF 2021(I)

                                  2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of March 2021

The petitioner is the registered owner of KL 26C

1461. According to the petitioner, only one stage

carriage KL 16D 4797 was operating in that route with

settled timings. They surrendered the permit and

stopped the service and in that vacancy the petitioner

submitted the application for temporary permit. The

delay in passing orders on that application has given

rise to this writ petition.

2. When the matter was taken up, the learned

Senior Government Pleader submitted on instructions

that on surrender of permit of KL 16D 4797, the time

slot was allotted to other vehicles. Though the learned

Counsel for the petitioner has a specific contention that

KL 16D 4797 was the only vehicle plying in that route

and consequently, the timing could not have been

allotted to other prior operators, I am not inclined to WP(C).No.6488 OF 2021(I)

go into the issue. Ultimately, it is for the authority to

decide on it.

3. Having considered it, I am inclined to dispose

of the writ petition itself by directing the respondent to

take up Ext.P2 application as expeditiously as possible,

after considering the objection if any raised, and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

4. It is further made clear that the petitioner

shall remit the fees as prescribed under law.

Thereupon, only the respondent shall take up the

application.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/25-3 WP(C).No.6488 OF 2021(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C10/98715/16/ATL DATED 3.8.2017.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.3.2021.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE