Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
JIGIL P – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks directive for permit consideration despite non-ownership. (Para 1) |
| 2. interim permit has been granted; waiting for application review. (Para 2) |
| 3. court mandates rta to consider applications within timeframe. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i.Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take Exhibit P9 application for renewal of Exhibit P2 permit submitted by the petitioner herein to file and pass orders thereon taking into account the law laid down in Raveendran v. RTO reported in 1995 (1) KLT 126 uninfluenced by the fact that petitioner herein is not the registered owner of the vehicle covered by Exhibit P2 permit.
ii.Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to take Exhibit P10 application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner herein to file and issue temporary permit under S. 87 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 taking into account the dictum laid down in Raveendran v. RTO reported in 1995 (1) KLT 126 uninfluenced by the fact that petitioner herein is not th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
