M.T.Abdulla vs The Regional Transport Authority on 31 January, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.T.Abdulla vs The Regional Transport Authority on 31 January, 2014

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran

       

  

  

 
 
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

   FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/11TH MAGHA, 1935

                WP(C).No. 2802 of 2014 (A)
                ---------------------------

    PETITIONER :
    ----------

      M.T.ABDULLA, MOTTAMTHARAMMAL HOUSE,
      VILLYAPPALLY P.O., VATAKARA.

      BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

    RESPONDENTS :
    -----------

   1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
      VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-673 101.

   2. THE SECRETARY
      REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA-673 101.

       BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.REMA

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR
      ADMISSION ON 31-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME
      DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BP

WP(C).No. 2802 of 2014 (A)
---------------------------

                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------

P1 :  COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, RTA VATAKARA
      WITHITS NO.C3/3124/13/V DTD.20.8.2013 OPERATING ON THE
      ROUTE VILLYAPPALLY -VATAKARA-KOZHIKODE-THALASSERY.

P2 :  COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MVAA NO.360/2013
      DTD.7.9.2013 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

P3 :  COPY OF THE DIRECTION PETITION IN MP NO.985/2013 IN MVAA
      NO.360/2013 DTD.7.9.2013.

P4 :  COPY OF THE POSSESSION AGREEMENT DTD.13.8.2013.

P5 :  COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
      2ND RESPONDENT DTD.5.8.2013.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :      NIL.
-----------------------

                                          //TRUE COPY//



                                          P.A. TO JUDGE
BP



                  K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   W.P.(C).No. 2802 of 2014
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated 31st January, 2014
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application for replacement of the vehicle KL 18/J 4878 with KL 56/G 9654. The RTA rejected the application by Ext.P1 stating the reason that since the vehicle sought to be put in the route is one obtained on lease, the replacement would be adverse to public interest since the lease could be terminated at any time. By judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96), this Court considered an identical issue and found that it is enough that the applicant has a valid agreement for holding the vehicle and is in legal possession of the same. Registered ownership cannot hence be a statutory mandate.

2. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is WP(C).2802/14 2 disposed of as follows:-

The 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P5 application and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the petitioner has a valid agreement to possess the vehicle and the petitioner complies with the other procedures, in accordance with law. Ext.P1 cannot be upheld on the strength of the above binding precedent and is hence set aside. The authority would do well to keep itself informed of the above decision, before orders are passed on Ext.P5.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court