Disposed

Sudheer S., v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Jan 2019WP(C)/465/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a stage carriage holder seeking revision of timings. The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the request, convene a timing conference, and pass orders expeditiously within six weeks, ensuring notice to all affected operators.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to consider Ext.P2 request for timing revision, convene a conference, give notice to petitioner and other operators, and pass orders within six weeks of this judgment.

Sudheer S., 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. 465 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUDHEER S., AGED 36 YEARS KILIYANVILAKOM, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), ATTINGAL-695101.

¶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.465 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 Attingal-Varkala Temple in

¶18

respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/Q-1666 with the timing settled as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 18.1.2018, 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.P2 for revision of timings in respect of his 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 petitioner

¶20

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

¶21

Since Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner

¶22

is pending consideration before the respondent,

¶23

W.P.(C)No.465 of 2019

¶24

:-3-:

¶25

this writ petition is disposed of, without going

¶26

into the merits of the case, by directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders

¶27

on Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner for revision of timings in respect of his 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.465 of 2019

¶33

:-4-:

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH PROPOSED SET OF TIMINGS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2018.

Sudheer S., v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer S., v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Ayisha Vs the Secretary