Mohammed Haji vs The Secretary on 6 March, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Haji vs The Secretary on 6 March, 2015

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran

       

  

   

 
 
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

             FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/22ND PHALGUNA, 1936

                                WP(C).No.7991 of 2015 (Y)
                                --------------------------------------

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

          MOHAMMED HAJI,S/O.MAMMADISA HAJI,
          CHENATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,POOKKOTTUR,
          MONGAM P.O,MALAPPURAM.


           BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

RESPONDENT:
----------------------

          THE SECRETARY,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          MALAPPURAM,PIN-676505.


            BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

          THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
          ON 13-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
          FOLLOWING:




pk

W.P(C) NO.7991/2015

                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1:PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 6.3.2015
       SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2:PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 6.3.2015 SUBMITTED
       BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT
       P1.

EXT.P3:PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.6233/2015
       DATED 27.2.2015.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:             NIL


                                   //TRUE COPY//




                                   P.S. TO JUDGE


pk



             K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              W.P.(C).No. 7991 of 2015
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated 13th March, 2015
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of a regular permit which he has in his favour. According to the petitioner, the application is not being considered on the ground that the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. By the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O. & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96) this Court had considered this matter and has found that it is enough that the applicant have a valid agreement for holding the vehicle.

2. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

The respondent shall consider Ext.P1 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C).7991/15 2 judgment irrespective of the fact that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the replacing vehicle and if he is in possession of a valid agreement and he complies with the other procedures in accordance with law.

Sd/-

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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court