Kerala High Court
Aboobacker P vs The Regional Transport Authority, ... on 23 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABOOBACKER P.
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KOMU HAJI,
PARAMMAL HOUSE, PADAPPARAMBU,
VATTALLUR P.O., KURUVA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 507.
BY ADV
SAJU J.VALLYARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 505.
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 505.
BY
SREEJITH V.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 6110 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for
regular permit on the route Valambur - Kovilakam Road
touching Kunnath Hospital, Mankada and Orodampalam.
The petitioner's application stands rejected as per Ext.P2
on the ground that the enquiry officer reported that the
portion of the route from Schoolpadi to Kovilakam Road
(2.5 Kms) is not suitable for Stage Carriage service due to
constraints in width and sharp turns.
2. The petitioner states that as the said portion was
found unfit for Stage Carriage service, the petitioner has
suggested a modified route avoiding the unfit portion as per
Ext.P3. Unless the 2nd respondent-Secretary considers
Ext.P3, the petitioner will be put to difficulties.
3. Government Pleader entered appearance on
behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition.
The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner
submitted an application for Regular Permit and the
application was considered in accordance with law and
rejected as per Ext.P2 for good and sufficient reasons. If
the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2, the remedy of the
petitioner is to approach the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal by filing appropriate appeal.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader
representing the respondents.
5. The petitioner does not dispute that the portion
of the route from Schoolpadi to Kovilakam Road is not
suitable for Stage carriage. The petitioner has therefore
submitted Ext.P3 representation making an alternate
proposal. In the facts of the case, it would be only proper
that the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority
consider Ext.P3, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of
directing the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority to
consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of
two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6110/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REGULAR PERMIT DATED 23.11.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2023
VIDE ITEM NO. 208.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2024.
