Disposed

Alikutty, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC11 Jan 2019WP(C)/278/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for stage carriage route variation during a scheduled timing conference. The Court directed the Authority to consider the request while making it clear that no comment on merits was passed and procedural compliance by the respondent is mandatory.

What did the court decide?

respondent directed to consider Petitioner's request during timing conference subject to notice to all operators and without substantive adjudication.

Alikutty, Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 278 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALIKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, 22ND MILE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.

¶9

SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

¶12

BY ADV.

¶13

SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.278/2019

-2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-56/9408 on the route Manjeri - Tirur (Via)Irumbuzhi, Malalppuram, Kottakkal, Edarikkode and Vylathur and touching Perinthalmanna (Via) Anakkayam and Mankada, covered by Ext.P1 regular permit 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 15.11.2018, while conducting timing conference pursuant to Ext.P4 notice dated 28.12.2018 issued by the respondent. As per Ext.P4 notice dated 22.12.2018 issued by the respondent (Serial No.9) the application made for variation of Ext.P1 regular permit, in respect of petitioner's stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-56/9408, in terms of decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority dated 25.09.2018 (Item No.39) will be considered in the timing conference, which is scheduled to be held on 15.01.2019.

¶19

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

¶20

Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that

¶21

W.P.(C)No.278/2019 -3-

¶22

the respondent shall consider Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner, while conducting timing conference pursuant to Ext.P4 notice (Serial No.9) in respect of petitioner's state carriage bearing Registration No.KL-56/9408.

¶23

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner while conducting timing conference pursuant to Ext.P4 notice (Serial No.9) in respect of the petitioners stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-56-9408 on the route in question.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as

¶25

to the merits of the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and it is for the respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also other en-route operators.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

W.P.(C)No.278/2019

-4-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 56-9408 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM DATED 25.09.2018 VIDE ITEM NO.39. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2018.

¶34

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

¶35

Alikutty, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alikutty, 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

V.Balaram Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)

The Guruvayoor Co-Operative Urban Ltd. NO.F1652 Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)

Sunilkumar.M Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission

V. Subramannian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Riyanath.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mallika Vs the Poomangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.