Disposed

Purushothaman Nair v. Secretary, Rta

Kerala HC12 Dec 2012WP(C)/19964/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider a request for the settlement of timing clashes between his vehicle and the second respondent's vehicle, and to convene a hearing within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the request for settlement of timing clashes and pass an order within one month after hearing parties.

Purushothaman Nair Vs Secretary, Rta — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 19964 of 2012 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS KALAPPURAKKAL, MARUTHORVATTOM.P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) SRI.T.P.SAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA PIN-688 001.

¶11

2. C.K.JYOTHIRAJ SANDHYA NIVAS, CMC - 18, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 19964 of 2012 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

---------

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL/09-J 4520.

¶20

EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING SHOWING THE TIME SCHEDULE OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE KL/09-J 4520.

¶21

EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP NO.368/2012 IN MVAA NO.112/2012 DATED 13.6.2012 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

¶22

EXT.P4- TRUE COMPUTER COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL/32 B 82.

¶23

EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.7.2012.

¶24

EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.7.2012 FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA TO THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA.

¶25

EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6.8.2012 SUBMIITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXT.R1.A. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DTD. 13.6.2012.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.19964 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2012.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P7 request for the settlement of timing clashes of the 2^nd respondent's vehicle KL32-B-822 on the route Paloothara Church - Cherthala with that of

¶35

the petitioner's vehicle KL-09-J-4520 on the route Thanneermukkam - Cherthala by convening a timing conference with notice to the petitioner, 2^nd respondent and other affected operators within a period of one month.

¶36

According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent is operating service without any time schedule as disclosed in Ext.P6 and that acute time clash is causing serious financial loss to the petitioner. In the circumstance, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 request for settlement of timings to avoid time clash with 2^nd respondent's service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not taking any action to redress the grievance of the petitioner.

¶37

::2::

¶38

W.P.(C).No.19964 Of 2012

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶40

It is said that Ext.P7 request is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. In the circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P7 request for settlement of timing clashes of the 2^nd respondent's vehicle KL-32-B-822, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and other affected parties, if any.

¶41

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶42

bkn/-

Purushothaman Nair v. Secretary, Rta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushothaman Nair v. Secretary, Rta

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

Shyam Vs Regional Transport Authority

Kerala Independent Silk Employees Union Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Manoj Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. Vs Thankachan Thomas

Joy Sebastian Vs the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 556

C.M.Alice Vs the Peravoor Co-Operative Housing Buildi