Disposed

Udayakumar v. the Secretary

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019WP(C)/992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for revision of timings. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the application, convene a timing conference, and pass orders within six weeks with notice to other operators.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the pending application for revision of timings, convene a timing conference with notice to the petitioner and other operators, and pass appropriate orders within s

Udayakumar Vs the Secretary — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 992 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARAN, ROHINI MANDIRAM, KARATEE, VAMANAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 992 of 2019

¶14

-2-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on

¶17

the route Pulimath Temple-Attingal with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-16/J-4888 (wrongly stated as KL16/C-2799). The timing of the basic vehicle bearing registration No.KL-16/C-2799 was settled on 11.11.2014, vide Exhibit-P1 proceedings. 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.P2 application for revision of timing in respect of his stage carriage, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

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

¶19

Since Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for revision of timings 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

¶20

WP(C).No. 992 of 2019

¶21

-3-

¶22

consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application, 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.

¶23

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶24

bpr

¶25

WP(C).No. 992 of 2019

¶26

-4-

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.1.2019.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.A. TO JUDGE

Udayakumar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayakumar 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

V. Subramannian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Riyanath.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mallika Vs the Poomangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

P. Vasu, Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

Rameshan Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sidheeque Ullattil Vs the Secretary