Dismissed

Shaila Uthaman v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016WP(C)/3676/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order changing stage carriage timings via circular. Court found no material irregularity in the order passed nearly two years prior. Dismissed petition but left open liberty to claim before timing conference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to make claims regarding timing disputes before a timing conference is constituted.

Shaila Uthaman 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

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3676 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAILA UTHAMAN

¶8

W/O.UTHAMAN, THEVERMUKKATHU, T.V.PURAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM PIN-686001.

¶12

2. K.P.AMBUJAKSHAN

¶13

KUTTIPPURAM HOUSE, T.V.PURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.

¶14

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3676 of 2016 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE

¶20

P2:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.7.2014
P3:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.8.2014

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 3676 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is an existing operator on the route T V

¶30

Puram- Vaikom - Velloor- Peruva, operating as per Ext.P1 timing. As per Ext.P2, timing was also alloted to the second respondent as per Ext.P3 circular. The same has become final and there was no challenge also. After settling the timings of stage carriage No.KL 02/U 3710, as per Ext.P3 endorsement change of timing of the second respondent was made in an illegal and irregular manner and there was no warranting circumstances for effecting change of timings. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

On a perusal of the pleadings and documents put forth by the petitioner it is clear that Ext.P3 order passed, which is under challenge in the writ petition is dated 19.8.2014. This writ petition is filed almost two years after passage of Ext.P3. I also did not find any

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 3676 of 2016

¶33

¶34

material irregularity or irrationality in Ext.P3 order. Therefore, writ petition has no sustenance either legally or factually. In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. However, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make any claim with respect to claims raised in this writ petition if and when the timing conference is constituted.

¶35

Writ petition is dismissed with the above

¶36

observations.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶39

dlk/30/6/

Shaila Uthaman v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaila Uthaman v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

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

A.M.Prakasan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Jacob Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation

R. Sreelathadevi Vs Karapuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.74

Sreenivasan Vs the Secretary, Rta, Thrissur

Kishore Vs Amutha S

V.Kumaran Vs Kasaragod Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society