AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P-2 application submitted by the petitioner for replacement of vehicle KL-57-B-9999 by a hired vehicle KL-11-BQ-6834 within a reasonable time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court.
ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
(SIC)
Petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL-57/B-9999 to operate on the route Kunnathuparamba - Kozhikkode touching Kadalundi. The permit is valid upto 11.07.2026. According to the petitioner, as the vehicle has got serious engine faults, the petitioner was not in a position to conduct service smoothly and therefore, he acquired a leased vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11/BQ-6834 for replacing the existing vehicle. Accordingly he submitted Ext.P2 application for replacement along with Ext.P3 hire agreement, but the respondent has not considered the same on the ground that the incoming vehicle is a hired vehicle. The petitioner relies on Ext.P4 judgment which followed the judgment of this Court in Anilkumar v. R.T.A., Kollam [2010 (1) KLT 758].
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that if the reason mentioned in the writ petition alone is the ground for not considering an application, there can be a direction to consider that application. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the only reason for not entertaining the application. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P4 judgment and the judgment in Anilkumar’s case (supra).
Therefore, this writ petition petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for replacement of the vehicle in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Anilkumar v. R.T.A., Kollam [2010 (1) KLT 758] and Ext.P4 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.