Kerala High Court
Muhammed Basheer P.T vs Regional Transport Authority on 28 January, 2025
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43136 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED BASHEER P.T,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O SUBAIDA, PERUMTHOTTATHIL, WEST
PAZHUR, PHED, PAZHUR P.O, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673661
BY ADVS.
RILGIN V.GEORGE
K.T.RAVEENDRAN
AKSHARA K.P.
ARATHY P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).734/2025, 2943/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 734 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MATHEW JOSE,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. JOSE CHERIAN, PATHIPPATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTINKARA
P.O., PALAYAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686571
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE BUILDING,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE BUILDING,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).43136/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2943 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
RISHAD ALI
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, PANIKKAR KUNNAN HOUSE,
KOORAD P.O., THATTARMUNDA, VANIYAMBALAM, WANDOOR,
MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 679339
BY ADVS.
RILGIN V.GEORGE
K.T.RAVEENDRAN
AKSHARA K.P.
ARATHY P.S.
MEERA J. MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 676505
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 676505
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.01.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).43136/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43281 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
KRISHNA PRIYA V.S.,
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. G. HARILAL, ETTICKAMURIYIL, MANNARAKKAYAM P.O.,
PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686506
BY ADVS.
RILGIN V.GEORGE
K.T.RAVEENDRAN
AKSHARA K.P.
ARATHY P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).43136/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 44105 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
UMMER P.P.,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMEDKUNHU P.P., PUTHANPARAMBATH, CHERUKULATHUR,
PERUVAYAL P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
RILGIN V.GEORGE
K.T.RAVEENDRAN
AKSHARA K.P.
ARATHY P.S.
MEERA J. MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).43136/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 46460 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
UNNIMOL,
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. SAJEEV C.K., CHAKKANALIL HOUSE, SOUTH ADUVASSERY,
KUNNUKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683578
BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682030
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.12.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).43136/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
& 2943/2025 -7-
JUDGMENT
The short question to be considered in these writ petitions is
whether the details of a vehicle have to be produced at the time of
consideration of an application for grant of permit in terms of the provisions
contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988
Act) r/w the corresponding provisions in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 Rules).
2. While W.P.(C) Nos. 43136, 43281 and 44105 of 2024 seek a
direction to the competent authority to consider the application filed for
issuance of permit, W.P.(C)Nos.46460/2024, 734/2025 and 2943/2025 have
been filed challenging the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority
adjourning or refusing to consider an application for grant of regular permit
on the ground that the petitioner/applicant has not produced the particulars
of the vehicle which is sought to be operated in terms of the permit applied
for.
3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. P. Deepak, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.43136, 43281 and 44105
of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.2943/2025 on the instructions of Adv. Rilgin V.
George, Sri. O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
W.P.(C) Nos.46460/2024 and Sri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.734/2025. The petitioners contend
that the production of the details of a vehicle is not required at the time of
consideration of an application for the grant of a permit and that the
particulars need to be furnished only before the issue of the permit. They
emphatically state that this issue is no longer res integra and the point is
covered in their favour by several judgments of this Court.
4. Sri. Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader would
vehemently contend that the law laid down by a learned single Judge of this
Court in Natarajan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal; 1999
KHC 206, following the Full Bench judgment in Narayanan v. RTA,
Trichur; 1980 KLT 249 (F.B) lays down the correct position in law and
the judgment in Ushakumari v. Abdul Azeez; 2000 KHC 190,
Aboobacker v. RTA; 2005 (1) KLT 987, Aysha v. R.T.A.,
Kasargode and Others; 2006 KHC 1033 and Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority v. Abdul Salam; 2016 (3) KLT 87 have not
properly appreciated the law laid down by the Full Bench in Narayanan
(supra). It is his contention that, though the decision of the Full Bench in
Narayanan (supra) was on the basis of the provisions contained in the
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this Court in Natarajan (supra) clearly held that
the principles laid down in the Full Bench judgment in Narayanan (supra)
continue to hold good even after coming into force of the 1988 Act and the
1989 Rules. It is submitted that, though a Division Bench of this Court in
Ushakumari (supra) and later in Abdul Salam (supra) and two learned
Judges of this Court sitting single, in Aboobacker (supra) and Aysha
(supra) have taken the view that the production of the details of the vehicle at
the time of consideration of the application for the grant of permit is not
necessary, the matter requires reconsideration. He prays that the matter be
placed before a Larger Bench for a consideration of the issue. The learned
Government Pleader referred to the provisions of Sections 66, 70, 71, 72 and
80 of the 1988 Act and the definition of 'permit' under Section 2(31) of the
1988 Act and to the provisions of Rule 159(1) of the 1989 Rules and contends
that, on a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, the only conclusion
that can be drawn is that the production of the details of the vehicle at the
time of consideration of the application for grant of permit is sine qua non for
consideration of the application for grant of a permit. It is submitted that the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board
Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir Jt. Motor Service (P) Ltd.
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
and Others; (1971) 2 SCC 222 is authority for the proposition that the
Regional Transport Authority has the power to call for any information that it
requires for considering an application for a grant of permit and such
information will also include the details of the vehicle that is proposed to be
operated, if a permit is granted. The learned Government Pleader submits
that in order to curb the illegal practice of agents and touts applying for and
obtaining permits without having to produce the details of the vehicle and
thereafter engaging in the sale of the permit to third parties (after the permit
is granted) it is necessary to hold that production of a vehicle is necessary at
the time of consideration of the application for the grant of the permit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend, in reply,
that, in the light of the fact that this Court in Aboobacker (supra) has
clearly held that the law laid down in Natarajan (supra) is no longer good
law and in the light of the findings in the Division Bench in Ushakumari
(supra) which was subsequently reiterated in Aysha (supra) and which also
found approval of the Division Bench in Abdul Salam (supra), the
authorities are not competent to insist upon the production of the details of
the vehicle at the time of consideration of an application for grant of permit.
It is submitted that the decision of the Division Bench is binding on this Court
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
and judicial discipline requires this Court to follow the law laid down by the
Division Bench. It is also submitted that there are practical difficulties in
producing a vehicle before the grant of permit as the vehicle will have to be
kept idle for several months till the grant of permit is actually made.
6. Having heard the learned counsel as above, I am of the view that the
petitioners are entitled to succeed. It is clear from the decision of the Supreme
Court in Mangrulpir (supra) that it is within the authority of the Regional
Transport Authority while considering applications for the grant of a permit if
it is of the opinion that such additional information has to be obtained before
the application can be considered on merits. Though a learned single Judge of
this Court in Natarajan (supra) took the view that the production of the
details of the vehicle is necessary at the time of consideration of the
application for grant of permit and also held that the law laid down by the
Full Bench in Narayanan (supra) was good law notwithstanding the fact
that the Narayanan (supra) was decided at a time when the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 was in force and applications were considered under the rules
framed under the 1939 Act, the Division Bench in Ushakumari (supra)
observed that the production of the vehicle at the time of consideration of the
application for grant of permit is not necessary. The learned Government
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
Pleader may be right in contending that the Division Bench in Ushakumari
(supra) actually followed the decision in Narayanan (supra) and did not
find that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Narayanan (supra) had
changed after coming into force of the 1988 Act and the 1989 Rules. A learned
Single Judge of this Court in Aboobacker (supra) held that, in the light of
the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ushakumari (supra), the
judgment of this Court in Natarajan (supra) was no longer good law. Later,
in Aysha (supra) this Court took the view that the production of the details
of the vehicle was not necessary at the time of consideration of the application
for the grant of a permit. The law was again reiterated by the Division Bench
in Abdul Salam (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:-
"Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25240 of 2015 has relied on a judgment
of the learned Single Judge in Aysha v. R.T.A., Kasargod. It is
necessary to refer to the said judgment. In the said case permit
was cancelled since the permit holder could not replace the vehicle
which had already completed 15 years of its life. Under the
decision of the R.T.A. the vehicle was required to be replaced after
15 years. Learned Single Judge in the said case held that vehicle is
not required at the time of consideration of grant of permit and
the current records need be produced only for the purpose of
issuance of the permit. Further it was observed that S.86 of the
1988 Act does not provide non-replacement of a vehicle or the
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
non-availability of a vehicle as a ground for cancellation of the
permit. The following was observed in paragraphs 6 and 7:
"6. Going by the law as it stands, including the position
propounded by this Court in Alavikutty's case , a ready
vehicle is not required at the time of consideration of the
question for grant of permit and the current records
need be produced only for the purpose of issuance of
permit following the grant. So much so, the grant in
favour of a person as an operator is not dependent upon
the availability of a vehicle to be operated following the
grant. The availability of a vehicle is not relevant for the
grant but for the issuance of the permit. S.86 does not
provide the non availability of vehicle as a ground for
cancellation of permit. All that law requires is that the
permit should be availed within the outer limit
prescribed by the Act and the Rules. S.86 of the Motor
Vehicles Act does not provide non replacement of a
vehicle or the non availability of a vehicle that is being
plied under a permit as a ground for cancellation of
permit. The embargo on the permit holder is that after
31.03.2004, a stage carriage, which would have become
15 years' old by then, could not be plied. This does not,
by itself, mean that the operator could not have brought
a ready vehicle later on, during the currency of the
permit. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle has attained
the age of more than 15 years is no ground to cancel the
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
permit and an operator, who has permit in his favour, is
entitled to bring in another proper vehicle during the
currency of the permit.
7. Reverting to the facts of this case, the permit issued to
the petitioner is valid till 17.04.2007. She had applied for
replacement of the vehicle and had brought a vehicle
during the currency of the permit. Even assuming that
she was not entitled to ply the stage carriage that she
had with her as on 31.03.2004, that is no ground to
cancel the permit."
There cannot be any dispute to the observations of the learned
Single Judge that a ready vehicle is not required at the time of
consideration of the question of grant of permit. We have already
referred to R.159(2) where time to the extent of four months can
be granted for producing records of the vehicle. As per R.159(1)
permit shall not be issued without entering registration mark of
the vehicle. "
Thus, on an analysis of the law laid down in the decisions referred to above, I
am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that
the law as it stands today requires the production of the details of the vehicle
at the time of consideration of the application for grant of a permit. The
details of the vehicle need to be produced only at the time of issue of the
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
permit and not earlier. The learned Government Pleader is, however, right in
contending that this cannot, however, lead to a situation where there is a
trade in permits by agents or touts after the same is granted. If this problem
is noticed by the authorities, it is for the authorities to bring this to the
attention of the Rulemaking authorities who may, by making suitable
amendments to the Rules incorporate specific provisions for dealing with the
situation.
7. In the light of the above findings Ext.P1 proceedings in
W.P.(C)Nos.43136/2024, 43281/2024 and 44105/2024 will stand quashed.
The competent authority shall reconsider the application for the permit in
accordance with the law without in any manner being hindered by the fact
that a ready vehicle has not been produced by the applicant, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment
taking note of the findings in this judgment. W.P.(C)Nos.46460/2024,
734/2025 & 2943/2025 are disposed of directing the respective Regional
Transport Authorities to consider the applications pending before them in
accordance with the law without in any manner being hindered by the fact
that a ready vehicle has not been produced by the applicant, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
taking note of the findings in this judgment.
Writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 734/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR
REGULAR PERMIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM P ST S
A DATED 26.6.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ALONG WITH THE
COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
IN CONTINUATION OF EXHIBIT P1 DATED
26/06/2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE L1T
RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2024 SIGNED FOR
COMMUNICATION ONLY ON 11.12.2024
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2943/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-FEE RECEIPT DATED
27.11.2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
10.10.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA (ITEM NO: 32) OF
THE MEETING OF THE RTA HELD ON 24.10.2024
ExhibitP4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA
DATED 24.10.2024
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43281/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE RTA
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN JAFFER V,
USMAN [2015 (4) KLT 590].
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40237OF
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44105/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA
DATED 05.09.2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN JAFFER V,
USMAN [2015 (4) KLT 590]
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40237OF
2024 DATED 14-11-2024
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46460/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR
PERMIT SUBMITTED DATED 11.12.2023 BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROUTE ENQUIRY REPORT
DATED 18.05.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE MOTOR
VEHICLE INSPECTOR
Exhibit P3 THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.
07G1/67/2024-KL07 DATED 17.08.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
7.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE STATION OFFICER, FIRE
AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH PARUR
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROAD FITNESS CERTIFICATE
DATED 29.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, NORTH PARUR
2025:KER:9009
W.P.(C)Nos. 43136/2024, 43281/2024,
44105/2024, 46460/2024, 734/2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43136/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA
DATED 05.09.2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
APPROVED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN
THE DECISION IN JAFFER V, USMAN [2015 (4) KLT
590].
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40237OF
