Disposed

T.v.Gangadharan v. the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram

Kerala HC31 Jul 2012WP(C)/12598/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to ensure their bus services are not disrupted by new services introduced by K.S.R.T.C. after a bridge commission. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representation submitted via Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

T.v.Gangadharan Vs the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012/9TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12598 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

T.V.GANGADHARAN, 42 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.SANKUNNI MENON (LATE) KALLURKORAT HOUSE

¶9

AYANKALAM P.O. 679594, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

P.K.SURENDRAN,

¶11

KANDANCHAMERATH HOUSE, AYANKALAM P.O 679 594,

¶12

MALAPPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

THE SECRETARY,

¶16

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

¶17

MALAPPURAM – 676 505.

¶18

THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶19

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PONNANI

¶20

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI G.GOPAKUMAR

¶22

BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 12598 of 2012 (Y)

¶25

A P P E N D I X

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P-1	ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.
EXT.P-2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

/TRUE COPY/

¶29

P.A TO JUDGE

¶30

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------W.P(c) No.12598 of 2012-Y

¶31

Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioners are stage carriage operators conducting services on the route Ponnani-Kuttipuram via Nariparamba & Thavanur. On 17.05.2012 the Chamravattom Regulator Cum Bridge across the Bharathapuzha was commissioned and thrown open to traffic, which connects Ponnani with Tirur directly. According to the petitioner, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (`K.S.R.T.C' for short) is proposing to conduct services on the route through newly opened bridge. Additional stage carriages are also proposed to be introduced on the route, it is alleged. The apprehension of the petitioners is that with the introduction of the new service, it would become difficult for the petitioners to continue their services unless the timings of the newly introduced services are settled in such a manner as to prevent clashes with the existing services. The petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 representation to the 1^st respondent seeking necessary reliefs in this regard. They seek the issue of

¶34

¶35

W.P(c) No.12598 of 2012-Y

¶36

appropriate directions for the consideration and disposal of Ext.P2.

¶37

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶38

In view of the limited relief that is sought, I am

¶39

satisfied that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the consideration of Ext.P2.

¶40

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶42

rtr/

T.v.Gangadharan v. the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.Gangadharan v. the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram

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

V.Fathima Vs the R.T.a., Vatakara

A.Venkatakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Perumpuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Bhanumathi.B. Vs Dr.Gopinathan

Kozhikode Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank LTD.NO.43 Vs P.P.Mohammed Ashraf

Rajan Vs the Kumaramputhur Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.