Disposed

Rijo C.J v. the Secretary

Kerala HC12 Feb 2021WP(C)/1813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a regular permit holder objecting to a proposed revision of timings by a competitor vehicle operator involving overlapping routes. The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider objections after obtaining a field report following a reasonable hearing.

What did the court decide?

Director first respondent to take up matter regarding revision of timings based on field report from AMVI after giving reasonable opportunity to objectors; decision to be taken within two weeks.

Rijo C.J Vs the Secretary — 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1813 OF 2021(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RIJO C.J, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOY, CHITTADI POUND 74, VELUPADAM, VARANDARAPPALLY, THRISSUR-680303.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION P.O., AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680003.

¶11

2 ABEESH M.V., S/O.VISWAMBARAN, MACHAT HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O., KOTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680662.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).1813/2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein is a regular permit holder on the route Kuthambully-Kodungallur in respect of stage carriage KL-11AX–1476. Petitioner obtained the permit and vehicle from his predecessor in interest, one Gireesh. Petitioner claims that he is at present operating without any conflict with the time schedule issued to the second respondent's service.

¶20

According to the writ petitioner, second respondent has preferred a request for revision of timing claiming that, timings of another service operating on another route is vacant and his timings are to be revised. On coming to know of the same that it was notified, the predecessor of petitioner in interest preferred W.P(C).No.9187 of 2019 before this Court. Thereafter, second respondent moved this Court by preferring W.P(C).No.34423 of 2019, wherein, a direction for consideration of the revision of timings, after hearing all the parties was granted. It seems that, second respondent thereafter initiated contempt of court proceedings as C.O.C.No.2112 of 2020. According to the petitioner, it was submitted by the Secretary, RTA that, he has under a pressure due to contempt proceedings initiated against him and unless the petitioner moves before this Court and get a direction to consider the objections, he will not be in a position to entertain the objection of the

¶21

W.P(C).1813/2021

¶22

¶23

petitioner. The limited prayer sought by the petitioner is for consideration of his objections against the proposal of revision, at the earliest, of the second respondent herein.

¶24

The contention of the second respondent is that, he has sought for a revision of timings on the vacant slot of another vehicle No.KL8E1404 evidenced by Ext.R2(a).

¶25

The essential contention between the petitioner and the second respondent seems to be that, there is a clash of timing in relation to both the vehicle to the extent of overlapping route in the stretch Thrissur-Kodungallur.

¶26

Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to take up the matter and pass appropriate orders regarding the revision of timings on the basis of a field report obtained from the AMVI and after giving a reasonable opportunity to all the objectors, specifically to the second respondent herein. Regarding the overlapping of timing, if any, a decision shall be taken by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with law.

¶27

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna

JUDGE

W.P(C).1813/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE C	OPY OF	THE P	ERMIT	DATED 20.10.2	020.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE WP(C)N	COPY O.9187/	OF 2019	TH DATED	E JUDGMENT 05.4.2019.	IN
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE WP(C)N	COPY O.34423	OF /2019	TH DATED	E JUDGMENT 17.12.2019.	IN
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE 21.12.	COPY 2020.	OF	STAT	US REPORT	DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 11.01.	COPY 2021.	OF	THE	OBJECTION	DATED

Rijo C.J v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rijo C.J v. the Secretary

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

Sudhi R.V. Vs Pallipuram Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. NO.760

Sethumadhavan C.K Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Noushad Vs the Secretary

Pathu Abdul Rahiman Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Shajikumar Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Muhammed Jaisal Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority