Disposed

Haneefa K. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC9 Dec 2022WP(C)/39971/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a stage carriage permit holder, challenged a timing conference fixed by the RTA. The court directed the authority to consider the petitioner's objection while reviewing the timing, also addressing all other objectors.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's objection and all other objectors regarding the revision of timing.

Haneefa K. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 39971 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HANEEFA K.,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. SUBAIR, KUTTUKADAVATH HOUSE, EDAKKADAPPURAM,
TANUR, TIRUR, PIN - 676 302, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN - 676 505, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2ABDUL AZEEZ,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KAMMUKUTTY HAJI,
KUPPANTEPURACKAL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM,
TANUR, TIRUR, PIN - 676 302, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV.

¶13

SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 39971 OF 2022 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner is the holder of a regular permit of stage carriage bearing No.KL-47-A-5941 on the route TanurTirur-Koottayi(via) Pookkayil, Unniyal and Puthiyakadappuram, valid up to 2025. On the request of the respondent No.2, respondent No.1, Secretary, RTA has already fixed the timing conference on 14.12.2022. The petitioner has submitted an objection dated 5.12.2022, Ext.P3 and apprehends that the same may not be heard at the time of the revision of the timing.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader submits that in case the objections have actually been received in the office, the authority would not be averse in taking a call on the objection not only of the petitioner but all other objectors.

¶19

In this view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing directions to the respondent No.1 to take a call on the objection of the petitioner qua the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 39971 OF 2022 -3-

¶21

revision of timing being considered on the request of the respondent No.2, not only of the petitioner but all other objectors in the scheduled timing fixed on 14.12.2022 or any other date to be fixed, in accordance with law.

¶22

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE

¶25

VV

¶26

WP(C) NO. 39971 OF 2022 -4-

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39971/2022

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶29

Exhibit P1PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT
VIDE NO. KL1010/24/2000 DATED
19.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-47-A-
5941.
Exhibit P2PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE
TIME LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT'S SERVICE SCHEDULED TO
BE HELD ON 14.12.2022.
Exhibit P3PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
05.12.2022.

Haneefa K. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneefa K. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

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

The Manager Vs General Secretary

The Central Board of Trustees Vs M/S.K R Gouri Amma College of Engineering for Women

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs the Secretary, M/S.Sanjeevani Samithi

Shibu.K.S Vs 1. the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Rijeesh K., Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority