Disposed

Fathima Suhara.M v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC10 Feb 2021WP(C)/273/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking revision of bus timings, the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the application for final timing, directed that the petitioner's suggested time be treated as provisional pending a report from the AMVI within four weeks to check for conflicts, valid until final settlement.

What did the court decide?

Timing suggested by the petitioner to be treated as provisional for four weeks pending report from AMVI.

Fathima Suhara.M Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.273 OF 2021(H)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

FATHIMA SUHARA.M W/O. MOHAMMED, POTTANAMCHALIL, POOKKOLATHUR, PULPATTA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.273 OF 2021(H)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner herein applied for revision of

¶18

timings, which was earlier granted to her. The application was rejected, which resulted in M.V.A.R.P No.188 of 2019. By this Ext.P3 order, the second respondent therein was directed to reconsider the request submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders, after calling for a report from the field officer if necessary, in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing all parties concerned.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that, due to existing pandemic situation, the above process has not been completed. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself, by directing that the timing suggested by the petitioner shall be treated as provisional timing, after getting a report from the AMVI as to whether that

¶20

WP(C).No.273 OF 2021(H) 3

¶21

timing clashes with the timing of the existing operators and also the consistence of travelling public. It shall be ensured that, the timing proposed does not clash with the timings of the existing operators. This exercise shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The timing so fixed will continue to be in-existence, till final timings are settled in a timing conference. It is made clear that, this timing will be purely provisional and will not treated as conferring any right on the petitioner to insist that it should be treated as final timing.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶24

R.AV

¶25

WP(C).No.273 OF 2021(H)

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.R.P. NO. 67 OF 2018 DATED 13.07.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF HE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.11.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO. 188 OF 2019 DATED 04.01.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.01.2021.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

Fathima Suhara.M v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima Suhara.M v. the 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

Purushothama Prabhu Vs Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1144

Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Santha.a.S. Vs the Chirakkara Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1894

O.v.Appachen Vs the Dairy Extension Officer

P.K.Anto Vs the Irinjalakuda Peoples Co-Operative Bank