Allowed

Noufal K.P., v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Kerala HC5 Oct 2021WP(C)/15573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's objections to new timing settlements issued to another stage carriage operator with due notice to all affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the Ext P10 objections with due notice to the petitioner and 2nd respondent and other affected parties.

Noufal K.P., 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 SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15573 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NOUFAL K.P.,AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, KUPPANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM, NIRAMARUTHOOR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION P.O., PI676 505, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MAMMAD, EYYATHAYIL HOUSE, MEENADATHUR P.O., TIRUR, PIN-676 307, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON SR.GP SRI.BIMAL K NATH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P(C) NO.15573 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He

¶17

is aggrieved by Ext P9 timings settled in favour of the 2^nd respondent. As against Ext P9, the petitioner has submitted Ext P10 objections. Petitioner seeks

¶18

for a direction to the 1^st respondent for

¶19

consideration of Ext P10 objections.

¶20

The 2^nd respondent has entered appearance and

¶21

has filed a counter affidavit justifying the settlement of timings as per Ext P9.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be sufficient if

¶24

the 1^st respondent considers Ext P10 objections with due notice to the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and other affected parties, if any, without delay. Writ petition is ordered as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

vdv

W.P(C) NO.15573 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15573/2021

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.SC2/915/2019 DATED 29.04.2019 BY ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONERS SERVICE.

¶34

Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.S3/5762/2018 DATED 29.10.2018 BY ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE.

¶35

Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.G2/121615/2015/M DATED 07.09.2016 BY ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE 2NDRESPODENT'S SERVICE.

¶36

Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1670/2021 DATED 29.01.2021.

¶37

Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 09.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶38

Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4664/2021 DATED 02.03.2021.

¶39

Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF TIMING CONFERENCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.SC3/1188293/2021 DATED 09.04.2021.

¶40

Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.9920/2021 DATED 16.04.2021.

¶41

Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.SC3/208808/2021/M DATED 29.06.2021 BY ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SERVICE.

¶42

Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 01.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRS RESPONDENT.

Noufal K.P., v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal K.P., v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

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

P.v.Mathew, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Visalakshi, Vs a.Shahul Hameed

Sini Punnoose Vs Musthafa Kamal

Jeemol Vs Dr.Aneena

Ernakulam District Co-Operative Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. No. E.933 Vs the Joint Registrar(General)

Thanima Agro Development Society Vs the Authorized Officer