Disposed

Shyam v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC11 Dec 2012WP(C)/22718/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners stage carriage operators sought to quash a timing notice scheduling a conference for permit variation proceedings. The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the respondent's request for time to produce records within one month and prohibited issuing further timings until that order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider and pass orders on request for time within one month; Secretary prohibited from issuing timings until such order is passed.

Shyam Vs Regional Transport Authority — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 22718 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SHYAM, 'UDAYAM', THEKKEMURI P.O, KARALMANNA, OTTAPALAM.

¶8

2. UDAYASANKAR.N., 'UDAYAM', THEKKEMURI P.O, KARALMANNA, OTTAPALAM.

¶9

3. ASHA,

¶10

W/O.PADMAPRASAD, ADUKURISSI, EZHUVANTHALA POST, PATTAMBI.

¶11

4. YOUSUF, PALLATH HOUSE, MAPPATTUKARA, KULUKKALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶15

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶16

3. KANNANKUTTY, THODAM KANNATH HOUSE, MANGODE, CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM - 678 101.

¶17

4. SUBHADRA, W/O.KANNANKUTTY, THODAM KANNATH HOUSE, MANGODE, CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM - 678 101.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

WPC.NO.22718/2012 L

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.10.2009.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.6.2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21957/2012 DATED 6.1.2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF RTA, PALAKKAD DATED 7.2.2012 SIGNED FOR COMMUNICATION ON 28.3.2012.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11.4.2012.

¶33

EXHIBIT P10.TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WPC 16026 OF 2012 DATED 6.7.2012 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶34

EXHIBIT P11.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.16026 OF 2012 DATED 23.7.2012.

¶35

EXHIBIT P12.TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN SEETHAL VS. RTA THRISSUR.

¶36

EXHIBIT P13.TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.20524 OF 2012 DATED 5.9.2012.

¶37

EXHIBIT P14.TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING NOTICE DATED 24.8.2012.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶43

W.P.(C).NO. 22718 OF 2012

¶44

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P14 notice for timing conference scheduled to be held on 3/10/2012, for a direction directing the 2^nd respondent not to schedule the timing conference on 3/10/2012 relating to the permit on the route Cherpulassery -

¶47

Mappattukara pending decision on the delay condonation petition and for other incidental reliefs.

¶48

Petitioners are stage carriage operators. The 3^rd

¶49

respondent applied for variation of permit. The variation sought for was granted by the Regional Transport Authority as per Ext.P8 proceedings. The 3^rd respondent did not produce the current records and he applied for time for production of the records. Ext.P9 is the copy of the request dated 11/4/2012 submitted by the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that Ext.P9 request was not considered till date. Petitioner submits that unless and until the delay in producing the records of the

¶50

-2-

¶51

W.P.(C).No.22718/2012

¶52

vehicle is condoned by the Regional Transport Authority, it is not open to the 2^nd respondent-Secretary to schedule the timing conference, which was scheduled to be held on 3/10/2012. It is also submitted that the timing conference was adjourned pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.

¶53

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the lst respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 request within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority shall not issue timings till an order is passed on Ext.P9 by the lst respondent.

¶54

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶55

kcv.

Shyam v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeevan Vs the M.D., K.S.R.T.C

Sasi K.K. Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Ismail Kunju Vs the Managing Director

P.N.Madhavan Vs K.S.R.T.C

K.S.E.B. Rep. by Its Secretary Vs C.Purushothaman

Santhosh Kumar Vs the Regional Transport Authority