Dismissed

Jaimon Joseph v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021WP(C)/2264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition regarding delay in action on a permit variation application by directed the Regional Transport Authority to afford hearing rights to affected parties and decide the matter together with a revision of timing application.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to place Ext.P3 before the first respondent for joint consideration with revision application after hearing affected parties.

Jaimon Joseph Vs Regional Transport Authority — 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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2264 OF 2021(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAIMON JOSEPH AGED 51 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KOOTTUMALAKUNNEL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶11

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.2264 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 15th day of February 2021

¶17

The petitioner herein is holding a regular

¶18

permit in respect of SC KL-05 G 5970, the petitioner

¶19

submits that, he has filed an application for

¶20

variation of conditions of permit, taking note of the convenience of the public.

¶21

According to the petitioner, the limited

¶22

variation sought is for curtailment of a trip

¶23

operating on the route from Kottayam to

¶24

Pongamthanam, in the noon trip alone as there is no

¶25

time gap for staff for taking food and also due to

¶26

traffic in Kottayam town. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the above application filed as Ext.P3, has not been taken up and disposed of in spite of considerable delay.

¶27

Opposing the application, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that, a report has been

¶28

received from the AMVI, who has reported that, the cancellation of one timing/change of timing may

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No.2264 OF 2021

¶31

adversely affect all other en-route operators timing

¶32

as well as it will affect the commuting public. It

¶33

was further submitted by the learned senior

¶34

Government Pleader that, the petitioner has sought

¶35

for a revision of timing, also by filing W.P(C)No.2024/2021 which was disposed of by this Court.

¶36

Essentially, I feel that, the Authority

¶37

shall dispose of Ext.P3 itself, after giving a reasonable time to both sides and also the

¶38

petitioner to convince that, it will not affect the

¶39

public or the existing operators in any manner .

¶40

dispose of the Writ Petition itself with a direction to the second respondent to place before the first respondent. The issue of variation as well as the

¶41

revision of timing, both are to be considered

¶42

together, so as to avoid the clash of orders.

¶43

Accordingly, there will be a direction

¶44

that, Ext.P3 shall be taken up along with the

¶45

revision of timing application mentioned in the Writ

¶46

WP(C).No.2264 OF 2021

¶47

Petition No.2024/2021, on the same day and shall be disposed of on merits, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the affected parties of being heard.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Jms //True Copy// P.A to Judge

¶52

WP(C).No.2264 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF	THE	PERMIT DATED 26.6.2019
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF 28.2.2014	THE	PROCEEDINGS DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF DATED 11.1.2	THE 021	APPLICATION FOR VARIATION
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 11.1.2021	THE	COVERING LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT P5	EXHIBIT P-8, WPC NO 8895/	TRUE 2020	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 20.3.2020

¶57

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Jaimon Joseph v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaimon Joseph v. 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

Pathu Abdul Rahiman Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Rijo C.J Vs the Secretary

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

Vakiyath Koya Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Sunil P.K. Vs the Secretary

Sunil Babu T.C Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission