Disposed

Ubaid T.M. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020WP(C)/28251/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the timing of bus services operated by the petitioner and a rival operator. The High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's objection notice, ensuring both operators are notified, and decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection, involve the 2nd respondent, and pass orders within six weeks.

Ubaid T.M. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.28251 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UBAID T.M. S/O MEETHIYAN BAVA, MUBARAK MANZIL, WEST KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA-683110.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KAKKANAD-682030.

¶11

2 VIPIN BABU, THARAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHAMADU.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683113.

¶12

SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.28251 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the Aluva - W/Island route in respect of a vehicle No. KL 58G 2310. The 2nd respondent is also an existing operator conducting service on the route Aluva - Fort Kochi, which is an identical route operated by the petitioner herein.

¶18

The petitioner contends that he has serious objections as regards the timings as there is likely to be a clash with the service operated

¶19

by the petitioner. He has filed Exhibit P3 objection before the 1st respondent and his solitary prayer is for a direction to the said respondent to consider the same.

¶20

Sri K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no impediment in considering the request. He submitted that the presence of 2nd respondent also be insisted when Exhibit P3 objection is considered.

¶21

In view of the submissions, this petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection and take a decision, as per procedure and in consonance with law, with notice to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, and pass orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶22

WP(C).No.28251 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the

¶25

judgment before the 1st respondent for further action.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

sru

¶30

WP(C).No.28251 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TREU COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.2.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.12.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.2007/2019 DATED 30.01.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

Ubaid T.M. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ubaid T.M. v. the Secretary, 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

Leelamma Gee Varghese Vs Maintenance Tribunal, Kollam

Nusrath C.H. Vs District Police Chief, Palakkad

Binson Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Aneesh Krishnan Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Vakiyath Koya Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kamarudeen Vs the Special Tahsildr (Lr)