Disposed

Ayisha v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Jan 2019WP(C)/459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, holding a regular stage carriage permit, sought a mandamus directing the Kerala Regional Transport Authority to expedite its pending consideration of her request for revision of timings by holding a timing conference with due notice to other operators and passing appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to convene a timing conference, give notice to the petitioner and other operators, and act upon the request for revision of timings within six weeks.

Ayisha 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

TUESDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 18TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 459 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AYISHA AGED 61 YEARS W/O. MEETHIAN BAVA, THANNIKKAPARAMBU, KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM 682 030

¶11

SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C)No.459 of 2019

¶14

:-2-:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The petitioner, who is the holder of a regular

¶17

permit on the route Aluva-South Chittoor Temple in respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AZ-1576 with the timing settled as per

¶18

Ext.P2 proceedings dated 18.10.2008 in respect of basic vehicle, i.e., KL-06/B-4383 (wrongly stated as 18.10.2018 in the writ petition), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider the request made in Ext.P3 for revision of timings in respect of her stage carriage, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected operators.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(C)No.459 of 2019

¶22

:-3-:

¶23

Since Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner

¶24

is pending consideration before the respondent, 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.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

ami/8.1.19

W.P.(C)No.459 of 2019

¶30

:-4-:

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.10.2008 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 7.12.2018

Ayisha v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayisha 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.J.Jijo Vs the Secretary

Rajan M.G. Vs the Managing Director

P.K.Santhosh Vs Regional Transport Authority

Veena K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Johnson.C.L Vs the Secretary

Sudheer S., Vs the Secretary