Allowed

Sunny George v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC14 Dec 2012WP(C)/29985/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the Regional Transport Authority to consider objections filed by the petitioners regarding proposed variations in bus timings for a specific stage carriage. The Court observed the limited prayer and disposed of the petition without issuing notice to the third respondent, directing the first respondent to consider the objections in the scheduled meeting.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of directing the First Respondent to consider objections raised by the petitioners against the proposed variation and revision of timings in the meeting scheduled for 15.12.2012

Sunny George Vs Regional Transport Authority — 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 29985 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SUNNY GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS KONDODICKAL HOUSE, UMBIDI PO. THOTTACKKAD, CHANGANACHERRY

¶8

2. SONY KURIAN, PULLANKULAM HOUSE MAMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM - 686 002

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM - 686 002

¶13

3. JOSE J. PALAKKUNNEL PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE MAMMOOD P.O. CHANGANACHERRY - 686 536

¶14

R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 29985 of 2012 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1- EXTRACT OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P2- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUING TIMING TO 2ND PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2012

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3- EXTRACT OF ITEM NO. 32 OF THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING DATED 15.12.2012

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.12.2012

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

DCS

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶28

W.P.(C).NO. 29985 OF 2012

¶29

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶32

Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction directing the lst

¶33

respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioners against the application for variation and revision of timings proposed by the 3^rd respondent relating to the 3^rd respondent's service operating on the route Medical College - Thiruvalla in respect of stage carriage KL-33 C 8688, which is included as item No.32 of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, scheduled to be held on 15/12/2012.

¶34

The only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to consider Ext.P4 objection filed against the grant of application for variation and revision of timings proposed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

In view of the said limited prayer, the writ petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

-2-

¶37

W.P.(C).No.29985/2012

¶38

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the lst respondent to consider Ext.P4 objections raised by the petitioners against the grant of application for variation and revision of timings proposed by the 3^rd respondent, in its meeting scheduled to be held on 15/12/2012.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶41

kcv.

Sunny George v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny George v. Regional Transport Authority

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

Dr.Padmanabhan.K Vs Sudheer K.P

P.a.Pappachan Vs the District Labour Officer

G.Satheesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority

C.O Davis Vs Secretary

Somarajan T.G. Vs the Assistant Registering Authority

Sreekumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam