Disposed

Mohammed Shafi v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC16 Feb 2021WP(C)/1106/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Sunil Thomas disposed of a writ petition filed by a stage carriage operator challenging the lack of fixed timings. The Court directed the First Respondent (RTA) to call for an AMVI report after giving notice to objectors and fix the timings within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to call for an AMVI report, give notice to objectors, and fix timings within four weeks.

Mohammed Shafi Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.1106 OF 2021(K)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 36 YEARS LAVERNA HOUSE, MELE KOZHICHENA, VALAKKULAM P.O., MALAPPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SHRI.P.DEEPAK

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶10

2 VAKIYATH KOYA S/O.HYDER, VAKIYATH HOUSE, MATTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 528.

¶11

3 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).1106/2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioner and second respondent are stage carriage operators. Second respondent was granted a stage carriage permit by Ext.P1 subject to settlement of timings.

¶20

By Ext.P2 judgment, first respondent was directed to issue permit to the second respondent within a period of 8 weeks with the provisional set of timings noted in Ext.P1 proceedings. It was subject to the rider that, it shall be ensured that the provisional timings noted in Ext.P1 proceedings do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating on the same route and if there is likelihood of a clash of timings, the first respondent shall modify the timings noted in Ext.P1 proceedings. Now petitioner and KSRTC are stated to have filed objections to the provisional timings. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, due to this objection, the timing is not fixed and due to other reasons also, the matter is not being taken up and heard.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that, provisional timings has been already issued on the basis of the AMVI report.

¶22

Having considered the limited prayer sought by the petitioner and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and learned counsel for the second respondent, I am

¶23

W.P(C).1106/2021

¶24

¶25

inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself directing that the first respondent shall call for a report from the concerned AMVI and after giving reasonable opportunity to the objectors, including KSRTC to be heard finally and pass orders on the timings. It is made clear that, first respondent will be free to change the timings appropriately to avoid clash, on the basis of the report received from the AMVI. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

W.P(C).1106/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, MALAPPURAM DATED 25/09/2018. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/10/2020 IN WPC NO.22740 OF 2020. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 06/01/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11/01/2021 FILED BY THE KSRTC BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Mohammed Shafi v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafi 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

Vakiyath Koya Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Jaimon Joseph Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sunil P.K. Vs the Secretary

K.J.Kuttiachan Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies ( General)

Ashok Kumar v., Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Jabir Vs National Insurance Company Limited