Disposed

Ravichandra v. the State Transport Authority

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2012WP/22145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed by a petitioner against the State Transport Authority, Justice B.S. Patil directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's modified applications within six months. The court found it appropriate to mandate action on the applications annexed to the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent State Transport Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's applications within six months.

Ravichandra Vs the State Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S PATIL

¶6

W.P. No.22145-146/2012(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

RAVICHANDRA S/O CHITHAPPA AGED 29 YEARS K T HALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( By Sri. M E NAGESH )

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY M S BUILDING BANGALORE-01 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

( By Sri. T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP )

¶15

¶16

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and direct the respondent – State Transport Authority, Bangalore to consider the applications of the petitioner filed on 6-9-11 along with modified applications as per Annex.A and B, etc.

¶17

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing before Court this day, the Court made the following :

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

In this writ petition , petitioner is seeking a direction to

¶20

the respondent – State Transport Authority, Bangalore, to

¶21

consider the applications filed by him on 6-9-11 vide Annexure

¶22

A' and the modified application submitted vide Annexure - B'.

¶23

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

the learned Government Pleader.

¶25

At the outset, the learned Government Pleader submits

¶26

that the application filed on 6-9-11 cannot be considered as the

¶27

same has been returned. However, the modified application

¶28

¶29

submitted subsequently on 6-3-12 will be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

It is seen from the petition averments and the correspondence made by the petitioner with the Secretary, KSTA, Bangalore, vide Annexure C' that the petitioner has filed a modified application as per Annexure D' in Form 35. The respondent is required to consider the same and take a decision on the matter.

¶31

In the circumstances, I find it just and appropriate to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of the application in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

mgn/-

Ravichandra v. the State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandra v. the State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Iqbal Amed Vs State Transport Authority

K Fayaz Ahamed Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority

Smt Rekha @ Roja Devi Vs Sri P Shridhar

Mrs Varsha Shetty W/O Sri Jeevan Shetty Vs Sri Jeevan Shetty

A Suresh Shetty Vs the Regional Transport Authority

M/S Maris Spinners Limited Vs the State of Karnataka