IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32456 of 2010(F)
1. ABDUL SALIM.T.T, AGED 36,S/O.MOIDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 32456 OF 2010 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Two stalls in the KSRTC bus stand, Ernakulam were let out to
a person called Sri. Abdul Sathar who is stated to be the brother
of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his
brother were running the business in the aforesaid premises in
partnership.
2. Subsequently the allotee, namely Sri.Abdul Sathar,
requested the KSRTC for cancellation of the licence and
accordingly the licence was cancelled. It would appear that later
Sri.Abdul Sathar made a request to the KSRTC for change of
licence in favour of the petitioner. In this writ petition, petitioner
challenges the cancellation of licence and seeks a direction to the
KSRTC to transfer the licence in his favour.
3. Admittedly, licencee was Sri.Abdul Sathar and it was
on the request of Sri.Abdul Sathar that KSRTC cancelled the
licence. If the licencee has requested for cancellation of the
licence and the KSRTC has acted upon that request, even if the
licencee subsequently made an application withdrawing the
WPC No. 32456/10
:2 :
request, the KSRTC cannot be faulted for the action that it has
taken. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against
the decision of the KSRTC to cancel the licence cannot be
sustained.
4. In so far as the request of the petitioner for transfer of
the licence is concerned, first of all, this request made could not
have been entertained by the KSRTC since licence itself is
cancelled. That apart, submission made by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the KSRTC would show that on cancellation
of licence, KSRTC has already invited tenders. Therefore, at this
distance of time, there arise no question of either KSRTC
considering the request or this Court directing KSRTC to consider
the request.
Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
