Kerala High Court
Vinod M.V vs The Secretary on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18391 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
VINOD M.V., MOORAYIL HOUSE, THRIPPALISERRY,
KARIKAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
3 RAJESHKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN, PANTHALATT HOUSE,
OLLUKARA P. O., KUNNAMKARA, PIN - 680655.
BY ADVS
SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
SMT . K AMMINIKUTTY - SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 18391/21
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent
is conducting 'illegal and unauthorised operation'
on the route 'Althara-Thrissur, using his stage
carriage, bearing registration number KL-46/A
4377.
2. The petitioner says that he has preferred
Ext.P6 objections against the application
preferred by the 3rd respondent for temporary
permit and prays that the 1st respondent be
directed to consider the same, before issuing any
such permit to him.
3. I have heard Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair -
learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Sajeev
Kumar Gopal - learned Counsel for the 3rd
respondent and Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
official respondents.
4. Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior
WPC 18391/21
Government Pleader, submitted that the afore
allegation of the petitioner is without basis and
that enquiries have revealed to the contrary. She
added that, as regards Ext.P6 objections is
concerned, the same will certainly be considered
before the application of the 3rd respondent for
permit is finally decided.
5. Sri.Sajeev Kumar Gopal - learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent, submitted that, in fact,
his client had earlier approached this Court by
filing W.P(C)No.9799/2021, in which, a judgement
dated 07.08.2021, had been delivered, directing
the competent Authority to consider his
application for temporary permit. He added that,
in fact, this Court had also permitted the status
quo to continue, until such time as the said
exercise is completed.
6. When I consider the afore submissions,
particularly those of the learned Senior
Government Pleader to the effect that the 3rd
respondent is not conducting any illegal
WPC 18391/21
operation, I am of the view that this Court will
be justified in disposing of this Writ Petition,
allowing the 2nd prayer made therein.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ
Petition and direct the 1st respondent - Secretary
of the Regional Transport Authority to take up
Ext.P6 objections of the petitioner and consider
the same, before the application of the 3rd
respondent for temporary permit is finally
decided; however, making it clear that if this
Court has already delivered a judgment in
W.P(C)No.9799/2021 to dispose of the application
of the 3rd within a time frame, then the same shall
be complied with, but the objections of the
petitioner be considered during such process.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 18391/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18391/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.27256 OF 2019 DATED 14.10.2019.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REJECTING
THE APPLICATION DATED 21.01.2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
M.V.A.A. NO.126 OF 2020.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
IN M.P.NO.607 OF 2020 IN M.V.A.A.
NO.126 OF 2020 DATED 27.11.2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.9799 OF
2021 DATED 07.05.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2021.
