IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18309 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AJI BEEGAM, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.KOCHUMON, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, NEAR KSRTC STAND, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRNSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. JOINT R.T.O, OFFICE OF THE JOINT R.T.O.,KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KAYAMKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:18309 OF 2010 K ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd June, 2010. JUDGMENT Te petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that Ext.P5 proceedings have been issued by the third respondent without hearing her. The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a permit for her autorickshaw with its parking place near the City hospital, Kayamkulam. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner is directed to apply for the permit with a parking place outside the town area. According to the petitioner her application for permit has been rejected by Ext.P5 without hearing her. 2. The learned senior Govt. Pleader submits that Ext.P5 has not rejected the petitioner's application but has only directed her to submit a fresh application with a parking place outside the town area. It is submitted that the reason for the same is that the Municipal authorities would have to be consulted for granting a parking place within the town area. 3. Counsel for the petitioner points out that it is up to the third respondent to have made the consultation that is required under law. According to the counsel, the petitioner was earlier having an autorickshaw which was having a halting place within the WPC 18309/2010 2 town area. It is pointed out that the above aspects have not been considered by the third respondent. 4. Though it is true that the petitioner's application has not been rejected by Ext.P5 proceedings, the fact remains that no orders have been passed on her application by the third respondent. The request of the petitioner to grant a permit to her with halting place near the City hospital, Kayamkulam has not been considered by the authority. The case of the petitioner is that she was having an earlier autorickshaw with its halting place near the City Hospital and that the present autorickshaw was purchased by her after selling the earlier one. Therefore, she stakes a claim to be granted a permit with the halting place within the town area. Since her request has not been considered by the third respondent, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the said authority to consider her request. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for the grant of a permit with halting place near the City hospital, Kayamkulam in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any WPC 18309/2010 3 rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 18309/2010 4