Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.Adarsh vs The Secretary on 6 May, 2016

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT:

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

   TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA, 1938

               WP(C).No. 17107 of 2016 (K)
               ----------------------------


   PETITIONER(S):
   -------------

         K.ADARSH
          RUGMINI BHAVAN, MUTHUKATTUKKARA,
          NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA

         BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

   RESPONDENT(S):
   --------------

          THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 691001

          BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR
     ADMISSION ON 10-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
     DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


bp

WP(C).No. 17107 of 2016 (K)
----------------------------

                           APPENDIX

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

P1:       A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO KL 26/
           F 6464 VALID TILL 07.01.2017

P2:        TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
          KL- 26/F 6464

P3:        TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 06.05.2016

P4:        TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED
          06.05.2016

P5:        A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2016 IN
          WPC.NO. 8373/2016


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS         :         NIL.


                                          //TRUE COPY//



                                          P.A. TO JUDGE

bp



                  ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

               ---------------------------------

               W.P. (C) NO. 17107 OF 2016

              -----------------------------------

          Dated this the 10th day of May, 2016


                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner confines his relief to an early consideration of Ext.P4 application for replacement of the vehicle. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment to contend that the vehicle in use can be replaced by an older vehicle provided the same is roadworthy.

2. I direct the respondent to consider Ext.P4 application with notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. I hasten to add that even a leased vehicle can be offered for replacement of vehicle as is attempted to by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

ANIL.K.NARENDRAN JUDGE sks