Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

REGHUNATHAN P.K. versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


REGHUNATHAN P.K. v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 29440 of 2006(D) [2006] RD-KL 3114 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29440 of 2006(D)

1. REGHUNATHAN P.K.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

WP(C) No. 29440 of 2006

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was preferred against the order of rejection of temporary permit on Ernakulam - Guruvayur route. As a matter of fact, there was a regular permit, which become ineffective by virtue of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, for non-payment of the tax arrears. It implies that if the minimum tax is paid during the currency of the permit, the said permit holder could get the permit renewed. But the petitioner then applied for a temporary permit since the regular permit holder could not operate the bus in the route for non-payment of the tax. It is contented that in the above circumstances there is a temporary need for issuing a permit. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand would submit that a temporary permit would be issued only on the conditions prescribed under Sec. 87 MVT Act. According to him no such circumstances has been arisen. Heard both sides.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for WP(C) No. 29440/2006 the petitioner that there is a particular temporary need and according to him when the regular permit holder is not running the bus, it implies that there is a temporary need. I cannot agree with the temporary need made are covered under Sec. 87(c). If the regular permit issued is ineffective by virtue of Sec. 15, the permit itself can be made effective by paying the arrears of tax. There is no case for the petitioner that the period of the very regular permit has expired. In such circumstances, the petitioner has to satisfy a particular temporary need, otherwise than as mentioned above. No such temporary need is mentioned in the application. The appellate authority in such circumstances, found that Sec. 87(1) is not attractive. I don't find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE)

jg


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.