Disposed

Thomas George v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC1 Mar 2021WP(C)/3982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the failure to finalize revised timings for a stage carriage route previously directed by this Court. Court directed Respondent to report from AMVI and pass final order within six weeks, warning of unpleasant consequences for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pass final order within six weeks on report from AMVI; unpleasant orders for non-compliance.

Thomas George Vs Secretary, 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 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.3982 OF 2021(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS GEORGE AGED 66 YEARS S/O GEORGE,.PALLIKKAL HOUSE, YMCA COLONY,SHORNUR,PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) SRI.P.G.MAHESHKUMAR SRI.R.BRIJESH

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,CIVIL LINES,PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.3982 OF 2021(W)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

¶18

The petitioner approached this Court contending that Ext.P2 application for revision of timing in respect of stage carriage on the route Thozhupadam – Pattambi has not been finalised and sought for finalising the timing. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 7.06.2019, directed the respondent to pass an order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Now, the petitioner has come up again contending that Ext.P2 and later Ext.P5 request for revision of timings have not been considered by the respondent.

¶19

The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that though notice was issued, objections were raised and timing conference was fixed, due to spread of pandemic, meeting could not held.

¶20

It is evident that Ext.P3 judgment was pronounced in 07.06.2019. The pandemic arose in

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No.3982 OF 2021(W)

¶23

March, 2020. Virtually, the respondent was sleeping over the direction of this Court, which is a conduct liable to be deprecated and a matter to be seriously looked upon. However, granting one opportunity to the respondent herein, to comply with the direction, there will be a direction to the respondent to call for a report from the AMVI and on the basis of it, after hearing the objectors, pass final order on Ext.P2 and Ext.P5, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

If for any reason, it is likely that the above process cannot be completed within the above period, due to reasons beyond his control, he shall on the basis of the AMVI report and considering the objections raised, shall consider Ext.P2 as provisional timing and issue orders within four weeks as above. It is made clear, if the second option is availed by the respondent, provisional timing will continue till the final orders are passed in a timing conference. This will not confer any right on the petitioner to insist that provisional timing

¶25

WP(C).No.3982 OF 2021(W)

¶26

¶27

should be adopted as the final timing. It is informed to the respondent that if for any reason, the above order is not complied within the stipulated time, unpleasant orders will follow. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

¶28

disposed of.

¶29

For reporting compliance post on 29.03.2021.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/2-3

WP(C).No.3982 OF 2021(W)

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 21.3.2000 ISSUING A SET OF TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.3.2019 WITH THE PROPOSED TIMINGS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)N.15567/2019 DATED 7-6-2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.2.2020 RELATING TO ITEM 5 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.1.2021.

¶39

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶40

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Thomas George v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas George v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani. K.M., Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise

Pavithra P Venu Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

K.B.Ramachandran Vs the Primary Co-Operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. NO.PT-234

Rama Padiyar Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Rasheed K. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Jiji Kurian Vs the Regional Transport Authority