IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
KRISHNAPRIYA.A.C. – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permit application rejected for no vehicle and saturation. (Para 1) |
| 2. precedents allow post-grant vehicle production; saturation invalid. (Para 2) |
| 3. alternative appeal remedy exists with time limit directions. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 application of the petitioner for regular permit on the route Ambayathodu-Chala Aster MIMS Kannur HQ Hospital - Chakkrakkal was rejected by the 1st respondent by Ext.P2 order on the ground that the petitioner has not produced a ready vehicle at the time of consideration of the application for permit. Yet another reason for rejecting the application is that the route in question is well served and allowing new permits will lead to unhealthy competition among operators. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue regarding production of ready vehicle is covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench decision of this Court inJaffer v . Usman [ 2015 (4) KLT 590 ] wherein this Court has taken the view that production of vehicle at the time
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.