Allowed

The Principal, Amritha Institute of Medical Science & Technology v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Kerala HC4 Jun 2015WP(C)/8324/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Principal of Amritha Institute of Medical Science & Technology sought a direction for the issuance of concessional travel cards to its students. The Supreme Court directed the second respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, to issue these cards within one week of receiving a copy of the judgment, recognizing the students' entitlement based on government notifications

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to issue concessional cards to the petitioner's students within one week from the date of receipt of the judgment.

The Principal, Amritha Institute of Medical Science… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 8324 of 2015 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL, AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KAIRALI BUILDING, OPP: NEW BUS STAND, VATAKARA - 673 1010, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

-------------------------

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, STUDENTS TRAVEL FACILITY COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VATAKARA - 673 101.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 8324 of 2015 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.03.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶20

EXT.P1(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 21.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶21

EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPIES OF FEW SUCH CARDS ISSUED FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012.

¶23

EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 07.08.2013.

¶24

EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 12.09.2013 IN W.P.(C).NO.22231 OF 2013.

¶25

EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 23.10.2013 IN R.P.NO.848/2014.

¶26

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22.01.2014.

¶27

EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 11.02.2014 IN W.P(C).NO.2266/2012.

¶28

EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 23.01.2015 IN W.P.(C).NO.20695/2014.

¶29

EXT.10: A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD.13.02.2015.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.8324 of 2015

¶37

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2015

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner has come up before this Court for a direction

¶40

to the respondents to issue concessional cards to the students of the

¶41

petitioner's institution so as to enable them to avail concessional fare.

¶42

The petitioner is the Principal of a recognised educational institution situated at Vatakara in Kozhikode district. The petitioner alleges that from the very inception, the students of the petitioner's institution were granted concessional fare on the basis of the fare notifications issued by the Government from time to time. However, for the year 2012-2013, the second respondent declined to issue concession cards to the students on the ground that Private Bus Operators Association, Vatakara which had been entrusted with the task of printing and distributing the cards had objected to the issue of

¶43

concession cards to the students of the petitioner's institution.

¶44

-:2:-

¶45

WP(C).8324/15

¶46

By judgment dated 12.09.2013 in W.P(C) No.22231 of 2013, this Court directed the respondents herein to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's entitlement to concessional fare. In the light of Ext.P8, the second respondent ought to have necessarily passed consequential orders granting the benefit of concessional fare to the students of the petitioner as well. The petitioner further alleges that, however, in the case of petitioner institution, the matter was placed before a sub committee of the students travel facility committee, which in turn directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report.

¶47

Now, after an elaborate enquiry conducted by the filed officers of the second respondent reported that the denial of concessional fare to the students of the petitioner's institution was not justified and they are entitled to concessional fare as per the fare notifications. The petitioner further alleges that this has been communicated to the first respondent by the second respondent by

¶48

WP(C).8324/15

¶49

-:3:-

¶50

Ext.P10. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in the light of the fact finding enquiry, there is no impediment in issuing concessional cards to the students of the petitioner's institution. However, no action has been taken on the basis of the aforesaid report. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶51

Arguments have been heard.

¶52

Considering the nature of the relief sought for and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to issue concessional cards to the students of the petitioner's institution within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶53

this judgment.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶56

krj

The Principal, Amritha Institute of Medical Science & Technology v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal, Amritha Institute of Medical Science & Technology v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

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.J. Tyju Vs State of Kerala

K R Mohankumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Sumathy Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Santhosh M.Paul Vs Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayath

Semeena.M.K. Vs the Kannur University

Dilip Vs Pala Municipality