ARUN M.R. v. THE SECRETARY
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2024-04-03. ARUN M.R. v. THE SECRETARY. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. NAGARESH RD WEDNESDAY, THE 3 DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 13569 OF 2024 PETITIONER: ARUN M. R. AGED 34 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN, MAHESWARI HOUSE, VELLATHODI, PURAVATHUR P. O. , KOZHIKODE. , PIN - 673611 BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION PO, EDAPALLY PANAVEL HIGHWAY,KANNUR . , PIN - 670002 2 SHIJIL PAYKUTTYKANDY S/O JANARDHANAN, VELLEN HOUSE, EKKAL, MAMBA,KANNUR. , PIN – 673513 SRI. S. GOPINATHAN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03. 04. 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P(C). No. 13569/2024 2 N. NAGARESH, J. ---------------------------- W. P. (C) No. 13569 of 2024 --------------------------------------------------rd Dated this the 3 day of April, 2024 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is registered owner of a stage carriage No. KL-76A-5022.
Based on a lease agreement, the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the second respondent so as to utilize the vehicle in the regular permit of the second respondent on the route Kannur-Irikkur. However, since the second respondent had violated the condition enumerated in the lease, the vehicle was returned to the petitioner and the petitioner is presently holding the vehicle. 2. As long as the endorsement regarding the lease agreement is there, the petitioner is not in a position to use the vehicle for any purposes. So, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 request before the first respondent seeking to cancel the W. P(C). No. 13569/2024 3 endorsement regarding the lease thereby the vehicle can be released from the permit also. Though Exhibit-P2 representation submitted on 13-12-2023, по further steps had taken by the first respondent to consider Exhibit P2. Hence, the writ petition. 3.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader representing the first respondent. In view of the nature of the reliefs to be granted in the writ petition, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. 4. The petitioner’s grievance is that inspite of cancellation of lease of the vehicle by the petitioner, the second respondent is running stage carriage. It is in this regard that Ext. P2 representation has been submitted. In the facts of the case, it will only be proper that the first respondent considers Ext. P2 representation in accordance with law with due notice to the second respondent. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P2 representation submitted by the W. P(C). No. 13569/2024 4 petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon with notice to the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE Sbna/ W. P(C). No.
13569/2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13569/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-76A-5022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13-12-2023.
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.