Kerala High Court
Salabham Travels vs The Regional Transport Officer on 29 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 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7058 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SALABHAM TRAVELS
2/382, KUNNUMPURATH BUILDING,
KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVAMKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER MANEESH SASIDHARAN,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SASIDHARAN,
SALABHAM HOUSE, KUREEKAD,
ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682305.
BY ADVS.
P.A.ABHILASH
BOBBY K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, CIVILSTATION, KAKKANAD,
THRIKAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682030.
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
THRIKAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REP.BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
PIN - 682030.
3 THE MANAGER
H.D.F.C BANK LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR,
S.L PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682025.
BY ADVS.
SREEJITH V.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
P.BINNY JOSPEH, STANDING COUNSEL
W.P.(C) No.7058 of 2024
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.7058 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who is owner of a contract
carriage, has filed Ext.P5 application for renewal of contract
carriage permit. The petitioner states that the Regional
Transport Authority is not considering the application in the
absence of No Objection Certificate issued by the 3 rd
respondent-Manager of the Bank.
2. Standing Counsel representing the 3 rd respondent
appeared in the matter and opposed the writ petition. The
Standing Counsel stated that huge amounts are due to the
3rd respondent and therefore No Objection Certificate cannot
be granted.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that in spite
of making a request, the 3rd respondent has not given any
reply within the statutory period of seven days. Therefore,
the 2nd respondent has to treat it as a Deemed No Objection
Certificate and renew the permit.
4. Be that as it may, since Ext.P5 application is
pending consideration, the 2nd respondent can process that
application and take a decision after hearing the petitioner
and the 3rd respondent.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority to consider
Ext.P5 application of the petitioner for renewal of contract
carriage permit with notice to the petitioner and the 3 rd
respondent and take appropriate decision thereon, in
accordance with law. While considering the application, the
2nd respondent shall advert to Ext.P8 judgment also.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7058/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-39-M-9073
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT
CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER
KL-39-M-9073 DATED 13.07.2018
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 16-12-2023 MADE BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
16.12.2023 ISSUED BY HDFC BANK
LIMITED
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
MADE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
05-02-2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
05-02-2024 THE TRUE COPY OF THE
POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 5-02-2024
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK
CONSIGNMENT OF EXHIBIT P6
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP
(C).NO. 6723 OF 2015 DATED 31.03.2015
BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
