SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
BINU P. – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46096 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR, SHRI.NANDAKUMAR K., SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S., SMT.ASWATHY MENON, SMT.SIMMY JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP., SRI. J. OMPRAKASH, SC.

The Court establishes that the regulatory authority must consider pending permit applications within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:The writ petition seeks to issue a mandamus to permit the petitioner to park and ply an autorickshaw and directs the consideration of the pending application for a Contract Carriage Permit. The Court orders that the first respondent consider the application within one month. The ruling clarifies regulatory authorities' obligations regarding permit applications.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests permit issuance and consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court mandates timely decision on permit application. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to park and ply his autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL 32X 2296 from Autorickshaw Stand No. II situated near to KSRTC Bus Stand, Cherthala;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for a Contract Carriage Permit submitted on 24.11.2025, evidenced by Exhibit P2, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, which reads as follows:-

“4. On 13.03.2024, the traffic regulatory committee had called for a meeting to look into this issue. And the committee then had decided to relocate the auto stand to any other vacant public land or to convert KSRTC land to a auto stand with permission from the government. But no further implementation to the decision were made. It is humbly submitted that granting permit to the petitioners vechile at KSRTC auto stand II is not recommended. It is respectfully submitted that permit can be granted to the petitioner in any other feasible location with recommendations from the respondents herein. The authority recommends granting vehicle permits at Absara Junction, Manorama Junction, and Court Junction.”

3. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s application for a contract carriage permit is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the same shall be considered, and orders shall be passed in light of the statement made by the local authority, noticed above. A decision shall be taken by the 1st respondent as directed above within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top