Remanded

Prema R.P v. R.T.a., Palakkad

Kerala HC2 Apr 2009WP(C)/2217/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the timing revision for stage carriage operations on the grounds that her claim for parity with other operators was ignored. The Single Judge set aside previous orders and directed the Respondent Authority to re-consider the request with notice to all affected parties within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P3 & P5 orders; direct 2nd Respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 request with notice to all affected parties within eight weeks; Petitioner to continue with existing timings.

Prema R.P Vs R.T.a., Palakkad — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 2217 of 2009(L)

PETITIONER(S):

PREMA R.P. W/O. RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 38 YEARS, POONGODE HOUSE ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE SECRETARY

¶15

REGIONAL AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD.

¶16

DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C, PALAKKAD.

¶17

ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WPC NO.2217/2009

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 : COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETTIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 02/11/2007.

¶23

P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/02/2007.

¶24

P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2008. P4 : COPY OF THE MVARP NO.331/2008.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2008 IN MVARP NO.331/2008. P6 : COPY OF THE PROPOSED TIMINGS.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.2217 of 2009

¶31

Dated, this the 2^nd day of April, 2009

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner submits that she is operating her stage carriage in the route Kozhinjampara-Thrissur via. Alathur. According to her, in 2005 she applied for revision of her timings, resulting in Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent. She was not satisfied with the timings as revised and therefore she moved the 2^nd respondent again by Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that in the representation leading to Ext.P1 also she sought parity in running time with other similar operators, in as much as according to her, while the other operators were operating 2.32 minutes/km, the petitioner was granted running time of 2.4 minutes/km. It is stated that this issue was not addressed in Ext.P1. This was again reiterated in Ext.P2. Timings were resettled again by Ext.P3. However, the claim of party in running time again was not addressed. She filed a revision as per Ext.P4 before the STAT, where also this grievance has been urged in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the statement of facts, in addition to this, her other arguments regarding the allotment of timings. However,

¶34

WP(C) No.2217/2009

¶35

-2-

¶36

the Tribunal rejected the revision as per Ext.P5 mainly on the ground that the affected operators were not impleaded as parties to the revision. The petitioner contends that in Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, only the name of the KSRTC was disclosed and the KSRTC was impleaded in the revision also. On this ground, the petitioner submits that the Tribunal should not have found fault with her for not impleading other operators.

¶37

Thus, in this writ petition, there are mainly two grievances. One is regarding the non-consideration of her claim for parity in running time and the other regarding the timings fixed.

¶38

A reading of Exts.P3 & P5 show that the claim for parity in running time was not addressed, although, the petitioner raised this grievance along with her grievance regarding the timings as settled. However, at all levels this issue was not addressed. On facts, therefore, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P3 & P5 and direct that the 2^nd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P2 request of the petitioner. This shall be done with notice to all affected parties. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

¶39

WP(C) No.2217/2009

¶40

-3-

¶41

within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

It is directed that in the meanwhile, the petitioner will

¶43

continue operation on the strength of Ext.P3 timings and this position will continue until or otherwise revised by the 2^nd

¶44

respondent.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶47

Prema R.P v. R.T.a., Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prema R.P v. R.T.a., Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.T.Hussain Vs Secretary,Regional Transport Authority

Abdurahimankutty Vs State of Kerala

Sony George.B Vs the Joint Chief Contgroller of Explosive

Meenakumari.v.M. Vs Abdur Rasheed, Registrar, Kannur Univer

Karapara Estate Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Others

George Thomas Junior Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University