AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 211 wordsMurali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner was a stage carriage operator with Ext.P1 permit. However, the petitioner stopped the service, as the operation was not profitable to the petitioner, due to the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation buses through the same route. According to the petitioner, since the KSRTC stopped many of their services through the said route, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application for fresh regular permit, which was returned by the 1st respondent with a direction to re-submit the application after paying fresh permit fee. Thus, the petitioner re-submitted Ext.P2 application as evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application in Form P along with Ext.P2 before the 1st respondent for regular permit. The grievance of the petitioner is that Exts.P2 and P4 applications for regular permit are not so far considered by the 1st respondent.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P4 applications for regular permit, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.