Disposed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC10 Aug 2016RP/618/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of review petitions seeking clarification of a prior judgment. The court clarified that the Tribunal must consider the pending revision without being constrained by earlier observations to prevent prejudice. Review petitions disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 29.06.2016 clarified to direct the Tribunal to consider the revision pending untrammeled by observations contained in said judgment.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 618 of 2016

¶6

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 002.

¶12

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

¶13

3. THOMAS,

¶14

S/O.DEVASSIA THOMAS, MANNANAL HOUSE, LAKKATTOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶15

4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.

¶16

R1, R2 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE R3 BY SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2016 ALONG WITH RP.NO.619/2016 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶20

R.P.NO.618 OF 2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.20602 OF 2016 &

¶21

R.P.NO.619 OF 2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.19403 OF 2016

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In these review petitions, petitioner is seeking review of the judgment rendered by this court in the writ petitions referred above on 29.06.2016. Even though several issues are raised in the review, petitioner is confining to the basic issue, that, since the Tribunal was directed to consider the revision pending before it, unless and until an observation is made to the effect that, the Tribunal shall consider the revision untrammeled by the observations contained in the judgment, it will cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the judgment dated 29.06.2016 is clarified to the extent, directing the Tribunal to consider the revision pending before it in

¶25

R.P.NO.618 OF 2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.20602 OF 2016 & R.P.NO.619 OF 2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.19403 OF 2016 2 accordance with law, untrammeled by any observations contained in the judgment referred above.

¶26

Review petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶27

sd/-

¶28

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶29

R.AV

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 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

E.Lukose @ Luka Vs the Director, Department of Fisheries, Tvm

Sibeshkumar.a.K. Vs State of Kerala

K.Krishnan Vs Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank

Joseph Thomas Vs Part Time Administrator

Kerala Primary Co-Operative Societies Vs Wyanad District Co-Operative Bank

Sheejamol Vs State of Kerala