IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30025 of 2007(Y)
1. R.UTHAMAN, PAKKALLIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 30025 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 17, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 as confirmed by Ext.P4.
2. By Ext.P1 proceedings of 30.5.2006, regular permit
was granted to the petitioner. He was granted the
maximum time of four months for production of the current
records. Again he sought time and that was rejected by
Ext.P2 order of the RTA. Against Ext.P2, petitioner filed
Ext.P3 appeal before the Tribunal as MVAA 213/2007. That
also met with dismissal by Ext.P4. It is in these
circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
time runs against him only from the date of service of the
order. According to him the proceedings dated 30.5.2006
was signed for communication only on 29.6.2006 and was
handed over only on 7.7.2006. If that be so, learned
counsel submits that the current records were submitted on
WP(C) 30025/07 2
2.11.2006, which was well within the time prescribed under
Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.
4. The learned Government Pleader has made
available to me the local delivery book maintained in the
office of the 1st respondent, which indicates that on
29.6.2006 Ext.P1 proceedings were handed over to the
petitioner and the same has also been acknowledged by
him.
5. Therefore, even if the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that time runs against him only
from the date of service of the order, counting the period of
four months from the date of service of the order, the time
has expired much before to 2.11.2006, when the petitioner
claims to have produced the current records. In that view
of the matter, the conclusion in Ext.P4 cannot be faulted.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
m/-