Shibu Kumar vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 12611 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shibu Kumar vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 21 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
       TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 17302 OF 2024
PETITIONER

              SHIBU KUMAR
              AGED 45 YEARS
              S/O RAGHAVAN, PULIYULLAKANDI HOUSE,
              THURUTHIYAD, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE,
              PIN - 673612

              BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


RESPONDENT:

              THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
              BADAGARA,
              VATAKARA, PIN - 673104

              SRI.SREEJITH V.S-GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.17302 Of 2024
                               2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is

holder of Regular Stage Carriage Permit on the route

Puthoorvattam Harijan Colony-Kattamvally-Koyilandy-

Vatakara-Balussery-Kurumpoil in respect of Stage Carriage

bearing registration No.KL-13T-2797.

2. The petitioner states that the Regular Permit was

valid upto 25.06.2022. The petitioner submitted application

for renewal of the Permit. The Regional Transport Authority

as per its decision on 22.11.2022 granted renewal of the

Permit. However, the renewal has not been endorsed so far.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to

endorse the renewal of the Permit granted by the Regional

Transport Authority as per Ext.P1. WP(C) No.17302 Of 2024

3. Government Pleader submitted that after the

decision of the Regional Transport Authority, there was

delay in producing the relevant records. The relevant records

were not produced even within the extended time. Therefore,

the matter will have to be placed before the Regional

Transport Authority again. Due to Lok Sabha General

Elections and due to Election Commission's code of

conduct, the matter could not be placed before the Regional

Transport Authority.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondent.

5. From the pleadings, it is seen that the petitioner has

submitted Ext.P2 representation before the respondent in

this regard. The case of the petitioner is that as long as the

Permit has not been cancelled and the permit has not been

renewed as per Rule 172, a further consideration by the WP(C) No.17302 Of 2024

Regional Transport Authority is not required.

6. As the petitioner has already made Ext.P2

representation in this regard, I am of the view that it would

be only just and proper that the respondent consider the

matter as per Rules.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by

the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon, within a

period of one month.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.17302 Of 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17302/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA DATED 22.11.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08.04.2024 REQUESTING TO ISSUE THE RENEWED PERMIT