IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31588 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, PONNURUNTHY, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRASPORT OFFICE,KAKKANAND, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.31588 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inaction on the part of the respondent in considering his application dated 28.11.2009 for renewal of license for the purpose of imparting instructions in driving two wheelers and three wheelers. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of such a license from 1990 onwards. That apart, it is his contention that on the expiry of the period of his license, it was renewed thrice. But, when the petitioner has submitted an application on 28.11.2009 for renewal of license, he was issued with Ext.P2 letter. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner was required to furnish certain details. The apprehension of the petitioner is that his application would not be considered at all. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner on 28.11.2009 was not actually returned and it would be considered, in accordance with law provided the petitioner furnishes the required details. The learned counsel W.P.(C) NO.31588/2010 2 for the petitioner submitted that those details are unnecessary for the purpose of considering the request of the petitioner for renewal of license, which was, in fact, renewed by the authorities thrice. I do not propose to consider the merits of the rival contentions at this stage. Admittedly, the licensing authority has received the application of the petitioner for renewal of license. The said authority is bound to pass orders in terms of the provisions under Rule 24 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, without making any observations as to the merits of the rival contentions, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of license, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.31588/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.31588/2010 4