Allowed

T.B.Kabeer v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020WP(C)/19327/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the 2nd respondent RTO to grant a regular permit to the petitioner with provisional timings within four weeks, ensuring no clash with existing routes, allowing a formal timing conference to finalize the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to obtain report on timing clashes and issue regular permit with provisional timings within four weeks; formal timing conference to be held.

T.B.Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19327 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.B.KABEER, S/O. BAVA, 10/52(10/85) THOPPIL HOUSE, GCDA, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶12

SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.19327 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit to operate service on the route North Paravur - Vyttila Hub using stage carriage No KL-10/AK 6070. It is contended that pursuant to Ext.P4 proceedings of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has been granted regular permit subject to settlement of timings. His prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to expedite the grant of regular permit after settling the timings.

¶18

Heard Sri Prasad Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶19

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that on account of COVID 19 pandemic, the authority is finding it difficult to schedule timing conferences and as a provisional measure, the permits can be issued to the petitioner by settling the timings provisionally after ensuring that the provisional timings do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating in the same route so that unnecessary competition and inconvenience can be avoided.

¶21

In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶22

a) The 2nd respondent shall obtain a report from the Motor

¶23

Vehicles Inspector and ensure that the provisional timings offered by the petitioner and noted in Exhibit P1 do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating on the same route. If there is a likelihood of a

¶24

WP(C).No.19327 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

clash of timings, the timing shall be modified accordingly. On the basis of the same, the 2nd respondent shall issue regular permit to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the timing so fixed shall be provisional in nature.

¶27

b) The above direction shall be subject to settlement of timings formally at a timing conference which shall be scheduled by the concerned authority. If the situation is not conducive to hold an open meeting in physical mode, the respondents may hold the conference virtually, if there are no other impediments.

¶28

c) It is also made clear that the issuance of the permit with provisional timing as directed in direction (a) above will not be seen as conferring any right on the petitioner to insist on the same timings at the time of settlement of the timings at the formal meeting to be convened by the Regional Transport Authority as per direction (b).

¶29

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the respondents to ensure compliance.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

sru

¶34

WP(C).No.19327 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.20105/2018 DATED 14.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO.121/2019 DATED 10.10.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2020.

¶39

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

T.B.Kabeer v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.B.Kabeer v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Sebastian, Vs Dr. K.C.Kurian

U.v.Abraham Vs the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

A.Bovas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H.) and District Collector

Adhikarath Kunheedhu Vs the District Collector

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar Vs the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

Pavithran. a, Vs State of Kerala