Disposed

Prabhakaran .K. v. the Secretary Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC5 Sept 2016WP(C)/23444/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an RTO order granting new timings to a rival operator without hearing the petitioner. The High Court, noting pending objections, directed the RTO to consider the petitioner's grievance, issue notice to the rival, and decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (RTA) to take the petitioner's objection on board after issuing notice to the second respondent and interested persons, and to take a decision within six weeks.

Prabhakaran .K. Vs the Secretary Regional Transport… — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23444 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRABHAKARAN .K.

¶8

MALLASSERY HOUSE, KAIRALI STREET, KALOOR, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶12

2. JYOTHISHKUMAR KONEZHATHU HOUSE, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA-688 546.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 23444 of 2016 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.12.2012 REGARDING THE TIMINGS OF PETITIONER'S SERVICE. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.12.2012 ISSUING THE TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE. P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 21.6.2016. P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2016

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT WITH ITS ORDER NO.C3/87/192/2015/A DATED 18.12.2015.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 23444 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash Ext.P4 by which a new set of timings is provided to the second respondent, which according to the petitioner was provided without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is a rival operator on the route. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order is passed quite detrimental to the interest of the petitioner with respect to the last trip from Cherthala by providing timings to the second respondent three minutes ahead of the timings provided to the petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P4, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶30

Learned counsel for the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit by which it is stated that, the

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 23444 of 2016

¶32

¶33

timings of the second respondent's vehicle was settled as per Ext.R2(a), after providing sufficient opportunity to all en route operators and therefore, there is no manner of interference of this Court as sought for by the petitioner is required, especially, when petitioner is having alternate remedy to approach the statutory authority in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶34

Petitioner has filed a reply reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also contending that while passing Ext.P4 order, petitioner was not heard, even though in Ext.R2(a) proceedings petitioner and other en route operators were heard. Along with reply, petitioner has produced Ext.P5, which is an objection submitted before the first respondent dated 3.8.2016, in which petitioner has expressed his grievances with respect to the new time schedule provided to the second respondent as per Ext.P4.

¶35

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar I am satisfied that, since Ext.P5 objection is filed by the petitioner and allegedly pending consideration before the first respondent , a decision can be

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 23444 of 2016

¶37

¶38

directed to be taken in respect of Ext.P5 objection.

¶39

Therefore, there will be a direction to the first

¶40

respondent to take on board Ext.P5 and take a decision on the same, after issuing notice to the second respondent and any other interested or affected persons, at the earliest, and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶44

dlk/5/9/

Prabhakaran .K. v. the Secretary Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran .K. v. the Secretary 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

Anil Kumar Vs Sajjad

V.J.Sebastian Vs Sri.Mohanan Nambiar

James Josson Vs the Muvattupuzha Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Kunjumol Vs Puthenchira Service Co-Operative Society

Noushad S. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

T.Amminikutty Vs the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.