Antony Leo vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 12499 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1943
                  WP(C) NO. 11326 OF 2021-M
PETITIONER:

   ANTONY LEO, S/O.VARGHESE,
1. 3/555, PANICKER ROAD,
   NADAKKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

  BY ADVOCATE I.DINESH MENON



RESPONDENTS:

 1.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
 KOZHIKODE, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
 CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

 2.THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
 KOZHIKODE, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
 CIVIL STATION P.O.


    SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.11326 of 2021-M


                                          2




                                     P.V.ASHA, J.
                                ---------------------------
                            W.P.(C) No.11326 of 2021-M
                              -----------------------------
                         Dated this the 20th day of May, 2021

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings by which the

applications for renewal of contract carriage permit and temporary

permit are not considered on the ground of the pendency of a criminal

case against him.

2. The petitioner is owner and driver of an autorickshaw. The

contract carriage permit for his autorickshaw was revoked consequent to

the registration of a crime, as per Ext.P1 as early as on 19.07.2014. In

the MVARP No.185/15 filed by the petitioner before the STAT,

Ernakulam the revocation of permit was set aside, taking note of the fact

that the revocation for 5 years itself was a sufficient punishment. The 1 st

respondent was permitted to take action under Section 86 of M.V Act if W.P.(C).No.11326 of 2021-M

required, on disposal of the criminal appeal pending. Subsequent to

Ext.P3 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for renewal of

permit and Ext.P5 application for temporary permit on 17.3.2021.

Instead of taking action on the same, the 1 st respondent has directed to

place the application before the RTA for necessary action along with a

copy of the final order in the criminal case.

3. The respondents are not justified in delaying the

consideration of the applications Exts.P4 and P5 till culmination of the

criminal case when the STAT has revoked the suspension of permit. The

mere fact that the respondents are permitted to take action under Section

86 after disposal of the criminal case, does not authorise the respondents

to keep the applications for permits, pending before them till then and

penalise the petitioner again in the meanwhile.

4. Therefore, the respondents shall see that appropriate action

is taken on Exts.P4 and P5 applications submitted by the petitioner

within eight weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Exts.P4 and P5 applications were not even accepted by the respondents.

In case the petitioner submits the applications without any defect, the W.P.(C).No.11326 of 2021-M

same shall be accepted and orders shall be passed within the time as

directed above.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

rtr/ W.P.(C).No.11326 of 2021-M

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXT.P1: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.19.7.2014.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN

MVARP NO.185/2015 DT.22.10.2015.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MVARP NO.185/2015

DT.1.8.2019.

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL

DT.17.3.2021.

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT

APPLICATION DT.17.3.2021.

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.11.1.2021.