Disposed

Sivadasan v. Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC22 Jan 2020WP(C)/605/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this brief order, the Court disposed of a writ petition apprehending interference with stage carriage timings. The Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the petitioner's objections after receiving the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and to pass an order only after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's objections after the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and only after hearing both parties.

Sivadasan Vs Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.605 OF 2020(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SIVADASAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O NEELAKANTAN PILLAMAT, PRAKKULAM CHERRY THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE PRAKULAM P.O, KOLLAM

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-13 2 BALACHANDRA PILLAI, S/O VASUPILAI MOHANALAYAM, ASTAMUDI P.O KOLLAM 691602 SRI. K P HARISH; GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No.605 OF 2020

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court apprehending an interference by the 1^st respondent with the existing timings of his stage carriage operation, to suit the 2^nd respondent. When the matter came up for admission the learned Government Pleader took time to get instructions as to whether a timing conference is convened by the Regional Transport Officer, the 1^st respondent, for the purposes of changing the timings of the petitioners stage carriage service. Today when the matter was called, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the 2^nd respondent had preferred a complaint before the 1^st respondent, alleging that the petitioner herein was not adhering to his timings, and the 1^st respondent has since called for an enquiry report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector, after hearing both the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

It is stated that once the report is made available by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the same will be placed before the 1^st respondent for a final decision, and that the petitioner's objections to the averments in the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent will also be considered by the 1^st respondent at the said meeting. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader on instructions, and recording the same, the writ petition is disposed by making it clear that in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent, pursuant to the report to be submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the petitioners objections to that averments in the complaint preferred by the 2^nd respondent shall be considered, and an order passed by the 1^st respondent only after

¶16

WP(C).No.605 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

hearing the petitioner and 2^nd respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1^st respondent, for further action.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No.605 OF 2020

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/4/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 3/10/2019 IN W.P(C) 17474/2019
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Sivadasan v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivadasan v. Regional Transport Officer

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

Binu John Vs the Secretary

Hanza Haji, Vs the Secretary

Xavier M.K., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Bini Chacko T. Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

G.Binu Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

C.v.Kochusara, Vs Saji T. Paul