Disposed

C.K. Mohanan v. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019WP(C)/7198/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stage carriage operator filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for revision of timings. The High Court directed the respondent to convene a timing conference within six weeks and pass orders thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's request for revision of timings by convening a timing conference within six weeks.

C.K. Mohanan Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport… — 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

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 7198 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.K. MOHANAN,

¶8

S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, CHEMBUKEEZHEDATHIL, THILLANKERI P.O., THALASSERY - 670 702.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶12

SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)7198 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the holder of a regular permit on the route Iritty-Thalassery-via Kakkayangadi and Thillangeri in respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13/P6116 with the timing settled as per Ext.P1 proceedings in respect of basic vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13/E-9639, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P2 request for revision of timings and allow the change of timings requested by him in Ext.P2 forthwith, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected operators.

¶18

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

¶19

Since Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner 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.P2 request made by the petitioner for revision of timings in respect of his stage carriage, strictly in accordance

¶20

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE BY WHICH THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY OPERATING. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K. Mohanan v. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Mohanan v. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

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

M/S.Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd., Vs Regional Transport Officer

Vijayan Nair, Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

E.M.S.Charitable Society Vs Konni Grama Panchayat

Joboy Joseph Vs the District Planning Committee

M.M.Scaria Vs Raju R

K.D.Sudhakaran Vs Kottayam Municipality