Loading...

Abdul Salim.T.T vs The Chief Engineer on 29 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdul Salim.T.T vs The Chief Engineer on 29 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information