Kerala High Court
Antony M.B vs The Secretary on 15 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3910 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANTONY M.B
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O BABU, ERETHARA (H)MAHILAPADI , KAITHARAM P.O
NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683519
BY ADVS.
N.P.SILPA
SAJU J.VALLYARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030
2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682030
3 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 STATE OF KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT., TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.3910 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who is a Bus Operator, has applied for
the grant of a fresh Regular Permit to operate on the route
Vyttila Hub-Edappally, Varappuzha-North Paravur via Thekke
Naluvazhi- Koonammavu-Manjummel Junction.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner's application for Permit has not been considered
and hearing is adjourned as per Ext.P2. At the same time, the
applications submitted by similarly situated persons have
been considered and allowed as can be seen from Exts.P3
and P4. The petitioner states that the delay in finalising the
decision on Ext.P1 application would adversely affect the
petitioner.
3. Government Pleader entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all
the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On
behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that there are factual
differences between the case of the petitioner and the case of
grantees under Exts.P3 and P4. In the petitioner's case, it
appears that there is some overlapping.
4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner's Ext.P1
application is of statutory nature, a decision has to be taken
thereon in accordance with law expeditiously.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority to
consider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner and
take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of two
months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected
parties.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3910/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE GRANT OF
REGULAR PERMIT DATED 01.11.2022 TO
OPERATE ON THE ROUTE NORTH PARAVUR -
VYTTILLA HUB
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE RTA
ERNAKULAM IN ITEM NO 14 OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 17.06.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON
05.10.2023 TO THE REGISTERED OWNER OF
THE BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER
KL07-BA-3658
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUING
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 29.09.2023
ISSUING REGULAR PERMIT TO THE
REGISTERED ON OF BUS NO.KL-07BA-3658
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
18.12.2023 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF RTA, ERNAKULAM
