Disposed

M. Gangadharan, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC19 Dec 2018WP(C)/41391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition seeking direction to respondent RTO to consider his request for revision of stage carriage timings with an opportunity of hearing and after holding a timing conference. Court directed RTO to comply.

What did the court decide?

Ordered that respondent consider petitioner's request for revision of timings within six weeks after convening a timing conference and giving notice to petitioner and other operators.

M. Gangadharan, Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 41391 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M. GANGADHARAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, 'ROSHNI', SOUTH BAZAR, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR - 670002.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR - 670001.

¶11

SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 41391 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator on

¶17

the route Cheemeni-Payyannur-Kannur-Kozhikode in

¶18

respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13/AF-79. The timing in respect of the basic vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13/AB-7576 was last settled as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 07.11.2014 of the respondent. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P3 request dated 29.10.2018 for revision of timings in respect of his stage carriage after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected operators.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶21

Since Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner

¶22

is pending consideration before the respondent,

¶23

WPC 41391 OF 2018 3

¶24

this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner for revision of timings in respect of her stage carriage, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also other enroute operators, after convening a timing conference, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 41391 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED IN
	RESPECT OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING
	NO. KL 13 AF 79.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING ALLOTTED ON
	07/11/2014 BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
	29/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
	BEFORE THE RESPONDENT, FOR REVISION OF
	OWN TIMING.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

M. Gangadharan, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Gangadharan, v. the Secretary

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

K.S. Nazar Vs the Muvattupuzha Primary Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural

The Calicut City Service Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sheeja J.Nair Vs State of Kerala

P.Raveendran Vs the Secretary

Shaji P.K Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Nandan.P. Vs the Secretary