Disposed

N. Christu Das v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016WP(C)/135/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition pending between a petitioner and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation regarding alleged possession of excess area. Orders were passed to consider a representation, stay proceedings, and remit a sum of 50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Direct response of the second respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation within two months, put proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 order on hold, and remits of sum of 50,000/-.

N. Christu Das Vs the Kerala State Road Transport… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 135 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N. CHRISTU DAS AGED 72 YEARS

¶8

S/O.NESSYAN, TC.14/663 NRA 74, VIKAS BHAVAN PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTATION BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023

¶13

THE ESTATE OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANASPORT BHAVAN, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023

¶14

THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STAE ROAD TRNASPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶15

RS BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 135 of 2016 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE ESI/19964/90 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( ADMINISTRATION ) DATED 21.04.2004 P2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL CONTROLLING INSPECTOR BEFORE THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, CITY UNIT DATED 04.07.2009 P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2009 P4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSRTC DATED 15.06.2012 P5:TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM VIDE NO. ESI 19964/1990 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.07.2012 P6:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO. GL.4914/12/CITY DATED 10.07.2012 P7:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS A REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT P6 P8:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMNET IN WPC.NO.28977/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27.11.2014 P9:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ESI/19964/1990 ISSUED BY THE 2D RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2015 P10:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GLI/3105/15/CY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2015

¶21

P11:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2015

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

--------------------------------------NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS

P.A TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner disputes the liability imposed on him under Ext.P10 order issued by the fourth respondent. The petitioner has challenged the same in Ext.P11 representation pending with the second respondent.

¶32

The petitioner contends that no excess area was alloted to him at any point of time. The fourth respondent points out that the petitioner has admitted the possession of excess area to the extent of 15 sq.ft in Ext.P11 representation.

¶33

I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation within two moths. The same shall be done with notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 order shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) towards₹ the demand with the third respondent within a period of one month.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶35

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶36

sks

N. Christu Das v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Christu Das v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

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/S.Chi Commodities Handlers Inc. Vs M/S. Chemmarathil Cashew Company

C.Ksathyaprakash Vs the Secretary

Shabu P.R. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Benny Davis Vs Premdas

Ayshu Vs the Secretary,Regional Transport Authority Cum Regional Transport Officer

G. Rajan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation