Remanded

Abdul Jabbar v. the Secretary

Kerala HC19 Jun 2014WP(C)/9332/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged failure to consider objections regarding a rival bus operator's timings. Court held it could not decide timing availability but directed RTA to consider objections and decide after hearing all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and decide thereafter within one month after hearing interested parties.

Abdul Jabbar Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/29TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 9332 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ABDUL JABBAR

¶8

S/O.JALALUDEEN, SHAMEER MANZIL, SOORANAD SOUTH PATHARAM P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691001.

¶12

2. MRIDUL MOHITH,

¶13

GEETHA ESTATE, CHATHIYARA, THAMARAKULAM KOLLAM-691001.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SUNITHA VINOD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

kkj

¶17

WP(C).No. 9332 of 2014 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1.2.2014.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO STATE CARRIAGE NO.KL 2/T5500.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 24/12/2013.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 7.9.2013 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 3.1.2014 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/1/2014 IN WPC.NO.28/2014 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO STATE CARRIAGE NO.KL 36/3136.

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA OF THE RTA MEETING.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.9332 of 2014-N

¶34

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2014

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner, a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Puthensanketham-Bharanikavu with a stage carriage bearing Regn.No, KL11-Z- 1212 has filed this writ petition complaining that Exhibit P5 objections submitted by him has not been considered by the first respondent. The petitioner is conducting services on the strength of timings settled as per Exhibit P1 on 01.02.2014. The second respondent is conducting services on the route Padanayarkulangara—Bharanikavu on the strength of successive temporary permits issued to him with stage carriage vehicle bearing Regn.No. KL 36 3136. The temporary permits are being issued in the vacant timings of stage carriage bearing Reg No.KL-23-7328. The original permit holder has defaulted service and is stated to have surrendered his permit thereafter. The complaint of the

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9332 of 2014-N

¶39

petitioner is that, the second respondent is conducting his services just two minutes ahead of his service. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of his objections while settling the timings of the second respondent's service.

¶40

Advocate K.V. Gopinathan Nair appears for the second respondent. According to the counsel, the petitioner's timings have been settled by Exhibit P1. Since the objections of the petitioner, Exhibit P4, had been preferred before the timings were settled, the objections are no longer surviving. The petitioner's attempt is only to unsettle the timings of his service that has been settled by Exhibit R2(a). Exhibit R2(a) is dated 03.01.2006. The second respondent is conducting services on the strength of said timings which do not require to be altered or modified in any manner for the reason that, they were settled after hearing all the interested persons. The total distance of the second respondent's service is 36kms, whereas the common

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

W.P.(C) No.9332 of 2014-N

¶43

sector is only 16 kms from Karunagappilly to Bharanikavu. Not even one time slot settled as per Exhibit R2(a) has been allotted to any other person, it is contended. Therefore, such a set of timings working effectively without causing any hardship or complaint to anyone is not necessary to be modified.

¶44

According to Shri.O.D.Sivadas who appears for the petitioner, the original permit holder having surrendered the permit after renewal was rejected, the timings of the said service are no longer in existence. The timings have been allotted to different operators at various points of time. Therefore, the contention that the second respondent is operating on the strength of the timings of the said service is not correct, according to the counsel.

¶45

Heard the respective counsel. The timings of the petitioner's service have been settled by Exhibits P1 on 01.02.2014. Exhibit P5 objections are seen to have been submitted on 03.01.2014. However, I do not find any

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

W.P.(C) No.9332 of 2014-N

¶48

reference in Exhibit P1 to the objections raised therein. The objections of the petitioner are to the effect that, the service operated by the 2^nd respondent with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2-5T 5500 is proceeding just ahead of his service causing a lot of problems in its operation. Since, such an objection has been raised with respect to the service of the second respondent, it is only appropriate that same is considered by the first respondent. I am not in a position to decide the availability of the timings, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is only appropriate that if timings of any particular service is causing inconvenience in the operation of another service, suitable modifications are made so that both services could be operated conveniently. The said process can be undertaken only by the first respondent.

¶49

For the above reasons, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 objections of the petitioner and to take a decision thereon,

¶50

-:5:-

¶51

W.P.(C) No.9332 of 2014-N

¶52

as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner, the second respondent as well as any other interested persons.

¶53

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶54

kkj

Abdul Jabbar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jabbar v. the Secretary

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

The Vengola Grama Panchayath Vs Stephen Varghese

A.Suresh Vs the Chairman, Kseb

Anishkumar.P.T. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

St. Albert'S College, Ernakulam Vs the State of Kerala

K.G.Sheeba Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Kuriakose Vs the Secretary, R.T.A