IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37224 of 2008(F)
1. REMA MOHANKUMAR, W/O.MOHAN KUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 37224 OF 2008 (F)
====================
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 in so far as the 2nd respondent has
imposed a condition that the vehicle shall be replaced with a vehicle
having wheel base 510 cm on or before 14/1/2012. The argument raised
is that while granting renewal as per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent had not
imposed any such condition and therefore it was impermissible for the 2nd
respondent to have unilaterally imposed the aforesaid condition in Ext.P2
while implementing Ext.P1 order.
2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the condition
mentioned above was imposed by the 2nd respondent acting upon a
general direction that was issued by the 1st respondent on an earlier
occasion. It is also pointed out that in MVARP No.305/08, the said general
directions have been set aside by the STAT.
3. If the facts are as stated by the learned Government Pleader,
it is obvious that there is no legal sanction in the condition that has been
imposed by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2. Therefore, the condition imposed
WPC 37224/08
:2 :
in Ext.P2 that the petitioner should replace the vehicle as directed therein
will stand set aside.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp