Dismissed

T.S.Rameshkumar v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022WP(C)/12321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking to quash revised carriage timing proceedings and mandate pre-revised schedules was dismissed as infructuous. The Court held that due to the pendency since 2018, subsequent developments rendered the petition premature and non-survivable. Liberty to seek reliefs before the statutory authority was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before the statutory authority.

T.S.Rameshkumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.12321 0f 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 12321 OF 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

T.S.RAMESHKUMAR

¶10

THACHUPARAM HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI. T.DINESH MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI PIN-685603.

¶13

2 SUBIL THOMAS ELAMBASSERIYIL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685603.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.12321 0f 2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2022

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

(i) Call for records leading to Ext.P2 proceedings of the 1^st respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶22

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1^st respondent to issue necessary proceeding to the 2^nd respondent to operate with the pre-revised timing (Departure time from Thodupuzha at 5.40 PM as allotted by the Secretary, RTA earlier)

¶23

(iii) declare that there is no circumstance warranting the revision of timing as per Rule 145(7) of KMV Rules so as to issue Ext.P2 proceedings to the 2^nd respondent.

¶24

(iv) grant the petitioner such other reliefs which this Honourable court deem just and fit in the circumstance of the case.

¶25

The subject issue relates to timing for the stage carriage provided to the 2^nd respondent viz., Subil Thomas as per Exhibit P2 order by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki.

¶26

This writ petition was pending before this Court without securing any interim orders from the year 2018. In my considered opinion, at this distance of time, many developments have taken place consequent to rescheduling of time, grant of permits

¶27

W.P.(C) No.12321 0f 2018

¶28

¶29

etc. Therefore, at this point of time I do not think anything survives to be adjudicated on iis merits.

¶30

Therefore, after perusing the pleadings & documents on record and hearing learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the statutory authority, if anything still survives.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

T.S.Rameshkumar v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Rameshkumar v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swaminadha Panicker Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Santhosh Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Padmakumari Vs the District Collector

Rajan P. Paulraj, Vs Rajendra Nath

Shajimon C.G. Vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat

Amina Vs Ani. P. N.