Dismissed

Mohammed v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC23 Mar 2012WP(C)/6122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a stage carriage operator, sought direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide his application to upgrade service class to a fast passenger service. Court directed RTA to consider the application in the next meeting if a feasibility report is received by April 17, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Direction to RTA Palakkad to consider Ext.P1 application and Ext.P2 representation in meeting held on 17.4.2012 if feasibility report is received by then, otherwise in meeting immediately thereafter.

Mohammed Vs the 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 P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2012/3RD CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6122 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOHAMMED, AGED 48 YEARS CHENATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

¶11

PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 678 001.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶13

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

VPV

WPCNO.6122/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE VARIATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
	PETITIONER DATED 12.9.2011.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE
	APPLICATION DATED 12.9.2011.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.

----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.6122 of 2012

¶27

----------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route Kozhikkode - Malampuzha on the strength of a regular permit as a limited stop ordinary service. He applied for change of the class of service as a fast passenger service by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 12.9.2011 accompanied by Ext.P2 representation of even date. This writ petition is filed contending that though several months have passed thereafter till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pass final orders on Ext.P1 application within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted on instructions that upon receipt of Ext.P1 application and Ext.P2 representation a report has been called for as regards the feasibility of converting the class of service as a fast passenger service and as soon as the report is received, an

¶31

W.P.(C) No.6122 of 2012

¶32

¶33

appropriate decision will be taken in the matter. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that if the report is received before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority which is scheduled to be held on 17.4.2012, the application will taken up and considered in that meeting itself.

¶34

In the light of the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to take up Ext.P1 application and Ext.P2 representation for consideration if the report called for is received before 17.4.2012 in the meeting scheduled to be held on 17.4.2012 itself and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously thereafter. If, for any reason the report called for is not received before 17.4.2012, the application shall be considered and disposed of in the meeting held immediately after the report is received.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶37

/TRUE COPY/

¶38

P.A. To JUDGE

¶39

vpv

Mohammed v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed v. the 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

M.L.Idikkula Vs B.Mohanan

Chinnamma Babukutty Vs the Regional Transport Officer

K.F.Sebastian Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative

The Secretary Vs Regional Transport Authority

Velayudhan K.T. Vs State of Kerala

Chacko.T.K Vs S.Roopakala Jagath