Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAYILVAHANAM versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MAYILVAHANAM v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 29455 of 2006(F) [2006] RD-KL 1644 (17 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29455 of 2006(F)

1. MAYILVAHANAM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :17/11/2006

O R D E R

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C).NO.29455 OF 2006-F

Dated this the 17th day of November, 2006.



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Secretary, R.T.A, Palakkad and also Ext.P7 judgment of the STAT confirming Ext.P6. The petitioner's sister concern, Shoranur Road Transport, was having a regular permit on the route Nemmara - Kozhikode, which was granted in respect of the stage carriage KL-9/C 1449. The permit was due to expire on 19.4.2006, the permit holder, Shoranur Road Transport, applied for renewal of the permit. During the pendency of that application, the petitioner and the permit holder submitted a joint application for transfer of that permit in favour the petitioner. That application was allowed by the R.T.A by Ext.P3 dated 25.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for temporary permit on the route. The said application was allowed and Ext.P4 temporary permit was granted. Later when the pending application for renewal of the permit was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court and this WPC.NO.29455/06 2 Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed to dispose of that application. This Court also ordered to dispose of the application for T.P submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said judgment, Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the petitioner's application for T.P. The reason for the rejection of the application for temporary permit was that the petitioner applied for T.P for a different vehicle. The permit was in the name of the vehicle KL-09/C 1449, but the petitioner offered another vehicle KL-09/R 4900. So, the Secretary took the view that permit under Section 87(1) (d) cannot be granted for a different vehicle other than the vehicle in respect of which the original permit was granted. The petitioner appealed. But the appellate authority rejected the appeal by Ext.P7 on a different ground. According to the Tribunal, as the renewal application was filed by the transferor, the petitioner transferee have no right to seek temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d). Petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P7.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. According to the learned Government WPC.NO.29455/06 3 Pleader, the transfer sanctioned as per Ext.P3 was not so far availed of by the petitioner by producing the current records of the vehicle. It is also submitted that the temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) cannot be granted for a different vehicle.

3. Since the petitioner is the transferee of the permit, I think, it can pursue the application submitted by the transferor for renewal. If that be so, the petitioner should be able to seek temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) also. The stand of the Secretary, R.T.A that the permit can be granted only in relation to old vehicle is plainly untenable. The right to get temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) is the right of the permit holder. It has nothing to do with the vehicle in respect of which the regular permit was granted. The only thing necessary is that the petitioner should have a ready vehicle for operating the temporary permit. Accordingly, Exts.P6 and P7 are quashed. The petitioner shall be granted temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) provided, it has got a ready vehicle to avail that permit. Accordingly, the Secretary, R.T.A is directed to take a fresh decision on the WPC.NO.29455/06 4 application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above within ten days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

cl


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.