Disposed

Muhammed Jaisal v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC12 Feb 2021WP(C)/2721/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court directs the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's request to revise bus route timings. The court orders the authority to call a report from the AMVI, hear operators, and issue provisional provisional timings that do not clash with existing routes.

What did the court decide?

Directed the R.T.A. to call a report from AMVI, hear operators, and issue modified provisional timings after the KSRTC is intimated.

Muhammed Jaisal 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

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

¶5

WP(C).No.2721 OF 2021(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED JAISAL AGED 38 YEARS S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, AREEKKAM HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.

¶11

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶12

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

¶13

WP(C).No.2721 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

¶17

The petitioner is the holder of a regular

¶18

permit conducting service on the route Balussery -Palakkad with settled set of timings issued on 31.03.2018. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request for

¶19

revision of the timings. The timing conference has not been convened due to various reasons. The prayer sought

¶20

by the petitioner is to direct Ext.P2 to be considered, as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

It is seen that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, timing conferences could not be convened. However, having regard to the nature of prayer sought by the petitioner herein and that since the petitioner is holding a regular permit, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself, by directing the respondent

¶22

to call for a report from the AMVI and to ensure that,

¶23

the timing proposed by the petitioner does not clash

¶24

with the timings of the existing en-route operators. After hearing the en-route operators and objectors as

¶25

WP(C).No.2721 OF 2021

¶26

well as giving notice to the K.S.R.T.C, the respondent shall issue the modified timing as provisional timings which shall be in force till, final orders are passed in an appropriate timing conference. It is made clear that, this timing will be strictly provisional and will not confer any right on the petitioner, to claim it to be treated as the final timing.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

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

¶31

WP(C).No.2721 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SET TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.03.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2020.

¶36

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Muhammed Jaisal v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Jaisal 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

Statutes considered

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

Rijo C.J Vs the Secretary

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