Dismissed

P.Ramachandran Nair v. the Secretary R.T.A

Kerala HC17 Nov 2011WP(C)/3313/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged proceedings allowing variation in timing for a stage carriage. Court found the petition infructuous due to vehicle surrender but directed granting future hearing opportunity before slot re-allocation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. Direction to respondent to afford opportunity of hearing to petitioner if same time slot proposed for another vehicle.

P.Ramachandran Nair Vs the Secretary R.T.A — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3313 of 2010(L)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,GOVINDA BHAVAN, P.O.PERUMPARAMBA, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

¶11

SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD.

¶15

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

3. SMT.K.GEETHA,W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KALLINGAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGINIKKARA, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R1 AND R2 ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.11.2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 3313 of 2010(L)

¶20

APPENDIX:

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXT.P1 CONTAINING THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED TIMINGS ALONGWITH THE SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 20.11.2007.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE APPEAL IN M.V.A.A.NO.9/2008 DATED 02.01.2008 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE APPEAL IN M.V.A.A.NO.9/2008 DATED 25.02.2008 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ASSIGNING THE TIMINGS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.05.09.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R..P. NO.172 OF 2009 DATED 23.07.09 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 25939/2009 DATED 24.09.2009.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE M.V.A.R..P. NO.255/2009 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM DATED 03.10.2009.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN M.V.A.R..P. 255/09 DATED 24.10.2009 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12:	COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN M.V.A.R..P. NO.255/09 DATED 30.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITOINER.
EXT.P13:	COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R..P. NO.255/2009 DATED 09.11.2009.
EXT.P14:	COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO. 14/2009 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T.ERNAKULAM DATED 07/12/2009.
EXT.P15:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2009 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 14/2009 IN M.V.A.R.P. NO. 255/2009.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶26

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 3313 OF 2010

¶28

Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the first respondent, through which variation in the timings was allowed with respect to stage carriage No.KL-10/N 5290 belonging to the third respondent, the petitioner had preferred revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (STAT). As per Ext.P13 the revision petition was dismissed upholding Ext.P6. A review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the STAT, as per Ext.P15.

¶31

In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 proceedings which is confirmed by the STAT through Ext.P13 and P15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.G. Anil Babu submitted that the permit with respect to

¶32

stage carriage in question, in the route Ponnani-Pattampi

¶33

W.P.C. No. 3313 OF 2010 -2-

¶34

has already been surrendered by the third respondent and the vehicle in question was already dismantled. Therefore the issue involved does not survive. The above fact is not disputed by the third respondent, for whom there is no representation.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner made a further appeal to restrain the first respondent from allotting the time slot fixed under Ext.P6 in the route in question to any other vehicles. I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the first respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in case if there is any proposal to allot the very same time slot to any other vehicles.

¶36

In the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the first respondent is directed to afford opportunity of objection and hearing to

¶37

W.P.C. No. 3313 OF 2010

¶38

-3-

¶39

the petitioner, if it is proposed to allot the time slot fixed under Ext.P6 to any other vehicle, on the route, PonnaniPattambi.

¶40

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Kp/-

P.Ramachandran Nair v. the Secretary R.T.A

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramachandran Nair v. the Secretary R.T.A

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

K.P.Rajan and Others Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat & Ors.

P.Bindu Vs K.S.E.B.

K.Sudhakaran Vs Director, Kerala Local Fund Audit and

Raji Joseph Vs the State of Kerala and Others

L.Mamachan Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies and Others

P.N.Ramesh Raju and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others