Disposed

V.P.Paul v. the Secretary

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022WP(C)/23529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a stage carriage operator seeking revision of authorised service timings. The court directed the respondent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders with necessary notice to other operators.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the request for revision of timings and pass appropriate orders with due notice to interested operators.

V.P.Paul Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23529 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

V.P.PAUL,S/O PHILIP, VELANCHERIYIL HOUSE, KUNNOTH, KALLIANTHARA, KANNUR-670 001

¶8

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002 R BY GP SRI.JIMMY GEORGE

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶12

21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 23529 OF 2022 ..2..

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He seeks for revision of own timings. He had been operating on the strength of time schedule issued on 25.02.2005. Due to introduction of new services and withdrawal of services, it has become necessary to seek for revision of timings. It is accordingly that Ext.P2 request has been submitted seeking revision of timings, is the contention. The petitioner seeks for an expeditious consideration of the application.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶17

Without expressing anything on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 request, with due notice to the petitioner and to the interested /affected operators, as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with priority.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶20

SB/21/07/2022

¶21

WP(C) NO. 23529 OF 2022 ..3..

¶22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23529/2022

¶23

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶24

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS TO THE PE 25.2.2005	PROCEEDINGS ISSUING TITIONERS SERVICE DATED
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 30.6.2022
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 7.7.2022	POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.20854/2022 DAT	JUDGMENT IN WPC ED 27.6.2022

V.P.Paul v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Paul 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

M.P. Chothy Vs Registrar General

Rajeevan.J Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Reji V.C Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Ashla Roy Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Nandanan P, Vs Secretary

Abdul Gafoor K.K, Vs the Secretary