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 2]

Kerala High Court

Raphel Mathew vs The Regional Transport Authority on 10 August, 2016

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

      FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938

                    WP(C).No. 36974 of 2016 (V)
                    ----------------------------


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

            RAPHEL MATHEW
            S/O.MATHEW, PORATHOOKARAN HOUSE,
            VARAKKARA P.O., MANNAMPETTA, IRINJALAKUDA,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT.


            BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

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

          1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            THRISSUR-680 002.

          2. THE SECRETARY
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            THRISSUR-680 002.


            BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA.

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 36974 of 2016 (V)
----------------------------

                              APPENDIX

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

EXHIBIT-P1:    PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VIDE
              NO.P.ST.8/2794/1994 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P2:    PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR VARIATION
              SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
               RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2016.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-    NIL.
---------------------



                             // TRUE COPY //



                                               PA TO JUDGE.



Kvs/-



                    P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                 WP.(C).No.36974 of 2016-V.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

           Dated this the 18th day of November, 2016.

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is holding a regular permit to operate a stage carriage service. Ext.P1 is the permit issued to the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the application preferred by the petitioner for variation of Ext.P1 permit. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within one month from today. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Kvs/-

// true copy //