Disposed

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary, Rta, Kasargod.

Kerala HC4 Nov 2013WP(C)/569/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court handled a writ petition by a stage carriage vehicle owner regarding the lack of a subsequent meeting to settle timings despite a previous grant of a regular permit. The Respondent was directed to convene a meeting and settle timings after affording the petitioner a hearing opportunity. The petitioner was directed to produce copies of the petition and this judgment with the Respondent wit

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to settle the timings after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

N.Krishna Holla Vs Secretary, Rta, Kasargod. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/13TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 569 of 2008 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N. KRISHNA HOLLA, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA HOLLA, NEERALA HOUSE, P.O. SHIRBAGILU, KASARGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ.

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARGOD.

¶11

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Prv.

¶14

W.P.(C).NO.569/2008-P:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GRAND PROCEEDINGS DTD. 04/10/2007.

¶18

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE DTD. 23/11/2007.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶24

W.P.(C) No.569 of 2008

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2013

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the

¶28

respondent to take follow up action in the light of Ext.P1, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶29

The petitioner, who is the owner of a stage

¶30

carriage vehicle, applied for a regular permit on the Madhur-Neerchal-Thalappady route. The same was granted by the RTA Kasaragod in the meeting held on 4.10.2007 as per Ext.P1 subject to settlement of timings.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that no

¶32

subsequent meeting was convened for settlement of timings. Therefore, his prayer is either to grant him permission to operate his vehicle on the the aforesaid route or to settle timings after convening a meeting.

¶33

There is nothing on record to show as to whether any follow up action was taken on Ext.P1. Therefore, the respondent is directed to settle the timings after affording

¶34

WPC No.569 of 2008 2

¶35

the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶36

For facilitating a decision, the petitioner may

¶37

produce a copy of the writ petition as well a copy of this judgment before the respondent within one month from today.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶40

css/ true copy

¶41

P.S.TO JUDGE

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary, Rta, Kasargod.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Krishna Holla v. Secretary, Rta, Kasargod.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Rajasekharan Pillai Vs Managing Director,K.S.B.

K.K.Rahulan Vs K.S.R.T.C.

M Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Bindu A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth G. Vs Headmistress, C.a.High School, Peruvamba

Habeeb Rahiman Vs the District Collector