Disposed

Thomas v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018WP(C)/3398/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's request to correct timing mistakes in an application while including proposed timings from another request, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider Ext.P4 request while considering timings in Ext.P2 as per Ext.P3 judgment within two months.

Thomas Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶4

WP(C).No. 3398 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER(S)

¶6

THOMAS,AGED 59, S/O. JOHN(LATE), 10/70, BETHEL HOUSE, PATTIKAD P.O., THRISSUR.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

WP(C).No. 3398 of 2018 (Y) --------------------------

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1:-	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24-05-2000	ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2:-	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 05-06-2017
EXHIBIT P3:-	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 16-06-2017	JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 20028/2017
EXHIBIT P4:-	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER WITH T 13-12-2017.	REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE HE PROPOSED TIMINGS DATED
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS - NIL ----------------

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶21

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3398 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Chittoor-Guruvayoor in respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-8/AT-5099, is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P4 request, with the proposed timings submitted at the time of consideration of Ext.P2 request dated 5.6.2017, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within the time limit to be fixed by this Court and revise the timings of the service operated by the petitioner in respect of the said stage carriage.

¶25

By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the respondent to consider Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner within a time frame. In compliance of Ext.P3 judgment, a timing conference was convened on 6.10.2013 which was adjourned for certain aspects. At that point of time, the petitioner noticed some mistakes crept in the proposed timing shown in Ext.P2. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request to correct

¶26

W.P.(C)No.3398 of 2018

¶27

:-2-:

¶28

those mistakes.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The learned Senior Government Pleader on

¶31

instructions would submit that Ext.P4 request made by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent, at the time of consideration of Ext.P2 request.

¶32

In such circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits of the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4, while considering the timing proposed in Ext.P2, in terms of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court.

¶33

Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶36

ami/15.2.18

¶37

//True copy//

¶38

P.A.to Judge

Thomas v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas v. 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.K.J Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Thomas Y. Vs Regional Transport Authority

Y.Thomas Vs Secretry, Regional Transport Authority

John P. Varghese Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Valsakumariamma Vs State of Kerala

D. Ramachandran Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.