Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. BEERAN KUTTY versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. BEERAN KUTTY v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - WA No. 86 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 1776 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 86 of 2007()

1. C.SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. BEERAN KUTTY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

V.K.Bali,C.J. & M.Ramachandran,J.

W.A.No.86 of 2007

Dated, this the 23rd day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J. The appellant, who is the petitioner in the original lis, is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Kozhikode Corporation Bus stand - Ernakulam South Bus stand. Originally, he was granted a regular permit for a period of five years from 15.12.1992 to 14.12.1997. It was renewed for a further period of 5 years from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2002 and further period of five years from 15.12.2002 to 14.12.2007. Pending consideration of counter-signature by the sister authorities for the issue of regular permit, appellant made an application for temporary permit for four months, which was rejected by the original authority in view of Rule 260(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, which says that stage carriage older than 5 years cannot be operated as Fast Passenger service. The appeal carried against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Authority, against W.A.No.86 of 2007 - 2 - which the petitioner filed the writ petition, which has been dismissed.

2. As per Rule 260(a) of the Motor vehicles Rules, a stage carriage aged more than five years cannot be operated as Fast Passenger Service. The appellant/petitioner can offer a new vehicle and seek a fresh temporary permit. In the circumstances, no exception can be had to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition. Surely, if the petitioner buys a new vehicle and apply for temporary permit, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. With the observation as made above, the appeal is disposed of. V.K.Bali Chief Justice M.Ramachandran vku/- Judge


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.