Ravi vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 12408 Ker

WP(C).No.10053 OF 2021(F)            1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

    TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 21ST VAISAKHA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.10053 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER:

               RAVI
               AGED 60 YEARS
               S/O. VELAYUDHAN, ORAVANTHURUTHIL HOUSE,
               NEELESWARAM P.O, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
               MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 601

      2        THE SECRETARY,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 601

               GP VINITHA B

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.10053 OF 2021(F)              2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of May 2021

Admit. The Government Pleader takes notice for the

respondent.

2. The writ petition has been filed, praying for a direction

to the respondents to comply with Exhibit P3 judgment of the

Tribunal and to pass final orders by circulation invoking Rule 130

of the Kerala motor vehicles Rules.

3. The petitioner, who is an existing stage-carriage

operator, operating service on the route Angamaly-Kolenchery,

had applied for variation of the permit by change of halting place

from Angamaly to Perumbavoor and to operate the last trip

proceeding from Perumbavoor to Angamaly without having any

overlapping on the notified sector. The 1 st respondent considered

the application at the meeting held on 17.3.2018 and rejected the

same. The petitioner took up the matter with the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by Exhibit P3 judgment allowed

the appeal, set aside the order of the 1 st respondent and directed

the 1st respondent to reconsider the application for variation on

merits. Even though in Exhibit P3, the Tribunal had directed

issuance of orders within 2 months, the grievance of the petitioner

is that no orders have so far been issued despite the fact that

timing conferences had been held in the meanwhile.

4. In the light of the limited prayer that has been made in

the writ petition, it is ordered that the 1 st respondent shall pass

orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for variation,

as directed in Exhibit P3 judgment of the Tribunal, within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

final orders shall be issued if necessary, by circulation as provided

in Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/--

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE dsn

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELAVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA WITH THE PROPOSED SET OF TIMING.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO. C6/2468/2019/EM DATED 17-03-2018

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-02-2020 IN MVAA NO. 155 OF 2019 ISSUED BY THE STAT, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7-09-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 18075 OF 2020 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.