Disposed

K.P.Antony v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/2105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the authority complied with the earlier statutory order. The matter was disposed of by closing the writ petition while reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the order passed on 24.02.2021, as the specific legality of that order was not under challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed by reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the compliance order dated 24.02.2021.

K.P.Antony 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

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.P.ANTONY AGED 54 YEARS S/O. PAULOSE, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, P.O. MATTOM, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶11

2 NAVEEN KUMAR, MAMPUZHA HOUSE P.O. KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR 680 505.

¶12

R1 BY SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

¶18

In MVARP No.7/2020, STAT, by order dated

¶19

15.02.2020 directed the second respondent therein to grant timings to stage carriage No.KL-08/P 9484 of the revision petitioner and pass appropriate orders

¶20

to that effect within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The petitioner has approached this Court contenting that, in spite of the above direction, the authority has not complied with Ext.P14 order.

¶21

When the matter came up for hearing on 27.01.2021, it was adjourned for instructions. Thereafter, on 08.02.2021, by order of this Court, the authority was directed to explain why Ext.P14 order has not been implemented notwithstanding the production of records. It seems from that order dated 08.02.2021 that the stand taken by the

¶22

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

authority was that an appeal was pending, which was

¶25

evident from Ext.P17. On 16.05.2021 also it was

¶26

asserted that no order was passed, since an appeal was pending. This Court is of the view that, if

¶27

there is no stay in the appeal, the authority was bound to implement the court order of the STAT in Ext.P14. Hence, the authority was directed to pass an order in compliance with the judgment in the MVARP No.7/2020 and to report compliance.

¶28

Accordingly, a memo has been filed by the

¶29

Senior Government Pleader now, informing that the order has been passed on 24.02.2021. The copy of the order was also produced. The petitioner has a

¶30

grievance that, the order is not strictly as

¶31

directed by Ext.P14 order. In the light of the

¶32

reliefs sought in the writ petition, which was for the direction to the authority, I am not inclined to

¶33

go into the legality and correctness of the order passed on 24.02.2021.

¶34

Having considered this, I am inclined to close

¶35

the Writ Petition reserving the right of the

¶36

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

petitioner to challenge the order dated 24.02.2021,

¶39

if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SSK/08/03 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

¶45

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2015 IN RP NO. 932 OF 2015.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 01/12/2015.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/12/2015.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2017 IN MVARP NO. 30/2016.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/11/2017 IN WPC NO. 33151 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 18/09/2018 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1218 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08/08/2018.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 IN MVARP NO. 118 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT DATED 25.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/06/2019 IN WPC NO. 16160 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08/08/2019.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2019 IN MVARP NO. 137 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2020 IN MVARP NO. 7/2020.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 03/03/2020.
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED PERMIT ISSUED TO

¶50

WP(C).No.2105 OF 2021

¶51

¶52

KL-10-X-7723.

¶53

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09/10/2020. EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/07/2020 IN WPC NO. 11779 OF 2020. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K.P.Antony v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Antony v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tibin James Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Jose V.C. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Ragesh R.I. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Chamukuttan Vs the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Salim K.B. Vs Registering Authority

Archana Reji Vs Thakazhy Grama Panchayat