Disposed

Sunil P.K. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021WP(C)/2872/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the variation of bus route timings. It directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's proposed timings via report, approving them provisionally for three weeks to avoid clashes with existing operators until a formal conference is held.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to provisionally approve the petitioner's proposed timings for three weeks after receiving an AMVI report, subject to no clash with existing operators.

Sunil P.K. 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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2872 OF 2021(H)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUNIL P.K. S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MARANCHERY HOUSE, ANAPPARA, ANNALLOOR, THRISSUR

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR PIN 680 004.

¶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.2872 OF 2021(H)

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The RTA, Thrissur allowed application for variation of condition of permit of the petitioner, holding it to be advantageous to the travelling public. A route enquiry was conducted and the field officer reported that the variation sought by the petitioner is very beneficial to the public. Accordingly, it was granted subject to the variation of timing. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has produced all the documents before the authority for issuance of the varied permit. However, the timing conference could not be conducted in spite of long delay.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction that the respondent shall consider the timings proposed by the petitioner, on the basis of the report to be called from the AMVI. If there is

¶18

WP(C).No.2872 OF 2021(H) 3

¶19

no clash in timings with the existing operators based on the report, the timing shall be approved, with such modification or not, as provisional till the timing is settled in a timing conference to be convened later. It shall be ensured that, the timing proposed does not clash with the timings of the existing operators. This exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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 the final timing.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶22

R.AV

¶23

WP(C).No.2872 OF 2021(H)

¶24

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1

¶28

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GRANTING VARIATION WHICH WAS SIGNED ON 29.1.2021

¶29

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.15789 OF 2020 DATED 5/8/2020

¶30

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

Sunil P.K. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil P.K. 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

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

Jaimon Joseph Vs Regional Transport Authority

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