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) 15518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
NOUSHAD C.A. – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3830 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. G.HARIHARAN, SRI. PRAVEEN.H, SMT. K.S.SMITHA, SMT. B.R.SINDU, SRI. V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR, SMT. AFNA V.P., SRI. V.ROHITH
For the Respondents: SMT. DEVISHREE - GP

Court allows the petitioner to resubmit timing proposals for permit issuance, recognizing previous interim orders while mandating expedient processing.

Headnote:The petition seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to issue a permit based on prior interim decisions (see Exhibit P5). The court acknowledges objections to proposed timings (paragraph 2) and allows submission of a fresh proposal by the petitioner within a week, urging a prompt review thereafter (paragraph 3). The ruling confirms that the writ petition is disposed of under the given directions.

Table of Content
1. petition for permit issuance. (Para 1)
2. objections to timings raised by state authority. (Para 2)
3. court permits fresh proposal submission. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:-

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the permit granted to the petitioner on the strength of Exhibit.P5 interim order issued by the Hon’ble State Transport Appellate Tribunal by settling the tentative timings submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Exhibit.P8 timings submitted by the petitioner till the final settlement of timings in a duly convened timing conference.”

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there were several objections to Ext.P8 proposed timings in respect of the petitioner’s Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL-11AE-7227 and the settlement of timings can be considered provided the petitioner submits a fresh proposal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh proposal will be submitted within a period of one week from today. If the petitioner submits fresh proposal of timings, Ext.P4 shall be considered by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the fresh proposal.

With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

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