The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the refusal on the part of the first respondent Panchayat in granting permit to the petitioner to ply atorickshaw within the limits of Bharananganam Town. It is contended that Ext.P2 permit has been issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Pala showing the place of parking as Bharananganam. It is despite the issuance of Ext.P2 that the first respondent Panchayat is showing reluctance to grant permit to ply the autorickshaw within its limit. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of Bharanangama Grama Panchayat the respondents are refusing to accept the application from the petitioner. Relying on the decision of this Court in Rajesh K.R. v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath and Others (2013(1) KHC
172) the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot decline consideration of his application. In other words, in the light of the said decision the respondents are bound to accept the application and consider it in accordance with law. The decision in Rajesh's case (supra) would reveal that it is the refusal
WP(C).No.8915/2014 2 from the part of the same Panchayat that constrained the petitioner therein to approach this court by filing the said writ petition. Evidently, the petitioner therein was also declined permit assigning the reason that he was not a resident of the said Panchayat. After considering the said aspects this Court held that the only restriction that could be placed on a person to ply his autorickshaw is in accordance with the conditions as stated in the permit. Further it was held therein that Section 227 of the Act does not confer any power on the Panchayat to impose any further restrictions. As noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P2 permit was granted to the petitioner by the competent authority and in Ext.P2 permit the place of parking was shown as Bharananganam. In the said circumstances, the respondent Panchayat are not justified in imposing further restriction to deny the petitioner an opportunity to ply the vehicle in tune with the conditions in Ext.P2 permit, it is contended.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit attempting to justify their action in declining grant of permit to the petitioner. The WP(C).No.8915/2014 3 action on the part of the first respondent in declining to accept the application and consider the same in accordance with law, cannot be sustained in the light of the decision in Rajesh's case (supra). In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue necessary permission to facilitate the petitioner to ply his autorickshaw within the limits of Bharananganam Panchayat in tune with Ext.P2 permit. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of an application for permit from the petitioner.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS