High Court Kerala High Court

Dri.N.Manohar Shetty vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dri.N.Manohar Shetty vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27395 of 2008(J)


1. DRI.N.MANOHAR SHETTY, AGED 50 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :19/09/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).27395/2008
                        --------------------
        Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008

                        JUDGMENT

First petitioner is a registered owner of the stage

carriage bearing registration No.KA 19/AC 1069 which is

stated to be covered with a regular interstate permit on

the route Mangalore-Kasargode, and second petitioner is

the registered owner of the stage carriage bearing

registration No.KA 19/AC 9531 with an interstate permit

on the route Mangalore-Kazargode. According to the

petitioners, interstate permit is being issued subject to

the payment of tax to the Government of Karnataka as well

as the Government of Kerala. But the permits are not

included in the interstate agreement in question when

they had come up for renewal. Petitioners submit that if

the permits are included in the interstate agreement

between the State of Karnataka and State of Kerala, then

hey would be in a position to continue to operate the

vehicle on the interstate permit. A similar matter has

been considered by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment.

Representations filed by the petitioners before the

W.P.(C).27395/2008
2

Government as Exts.P2 and P3 are pending

consideration.

2. I heard learned Government Pleader also.

3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing

the first respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3 and take

a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs