Sunny Mathew vs Regional Transport Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 10386 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 31790 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             SUNNY MATHEW
             AGED 54 YEARS
             S/O. LATE MATHEW, CHITTAPPANATTU HOUSE,
             MKUNDAKKAYAM-686 513
             BY ADV I.DINESH MENON


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
             KOTTAYAM ,REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686
             002
     2       THE SECRETARY,
             REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM ,REGIONAL
             TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 002

OTHER PRESENT:

             GP JIMMY GEORGE

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.10.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.31790 of 2022            2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   ---------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No.31790 of 2022
                    --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022


                             JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction commanding the first respondent Regional Transport Authority Kottayam to consider Exhibit P1 application for regular permit on the route Elamkadu-Pampavally and pass orders on the application notwithstanding the fact that no ready vehicle is offered, taking note of the decision reported in 1980 KTLT 249 and 2000 (1) KLT 25 within a time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper "(ii) To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper." [SIC]

2. The petitioner is an applicant for the grant of a

regular permit on the route Elamkadu-Pampavally. It is the case

of the petitioner that he has not offered any ready vehicle for

the purpose of availing the regular permit. It is alleged that for

that reason, the respondents failed to entertain the application.

It is the case of the petitioner that the above point is covered in

favour of the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments.

Therefore, this writ petition is for a direction to consider the

application, in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The learned Government

Pleader submitted that the application should be in order and if

there is any other formalities to be complied, the petitioner

should comply the same.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions :

1) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P1 in the

light of Exts.P3 and P4 as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, if Ext.P1

application is in order and there is no other legal

impediment.

2) I make it clear that I have not considered the matter

on merit and the only point raised is that since there

is no ready vehicle, the same is not considered. But

the same is covered by Exts.P3 and P4 judgments.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31790/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT DATED 26.9.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 26.9.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1980 KLT 249 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2000 (1) KLT 25