Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.SAJEEVAN versus THE SECRETARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.SAJEEVAN v. THE SECRETARY - WP(C) No. 18213 of 2006(R) [2006] RD-KL 1646 (17 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18213 of 2006(R)

1. P.SAJEEVAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

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.18213 OF 2006-R

Dated this the 17th day of November, 2006.



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner's father was having a regular permit on the route Kuthuparamba - Thalassery - Kozhikode granted in respect of the vehicle KL-6 B 9736. His father died on 4.4.2004. The petitioner succeeded to the possession of the vehicle and the permit was transferred to him with the consent of other legal heirs by the R.T.A, Vadakara by its decision dated 16.6.2005. The said decision is produced as Ext.P4. The transfer was not endorsed for the reason that current records of the vehicle were produced only on 1.6.2006 which is against the provisions contained under Rule 159(2). Communication of the Secretary in this regard is Ext.P6. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, Rule 159(2) has no application to the facts of the case. If at all any rule is applicable, that will be Rule 178.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the WPC.NO.18213/06 2 respondent also. The learned Government Pleader supported the decision of the Secretary, R.T.A that transfer cannot be endorsed for the reason that the current records of the vehicle were not produced within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159(2).

3. This is not a permit newly granted. So, I feel that the provisions of Rule 159(2) will not apply to the facts of the case. No provision was brought to my notice which says that Rule 159(2) will apply to the transfer of permit to the legal heir on the death of the original permit holder. In view of the above position, Ext.P6 is quashed. The respondent is directed to endorse the transfer granted as per Ext.P4 in the permit of the aforementioned vehicle within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

cl WPC.NO.18213/06 3


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.