Disposed

Muhammed Younus v. The Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023WP(C)/38/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that in the absence of merit hearing due to the non-sitting of the STAT, the interim orders in pending revision applications regarding transport permits were extended for 15 days as a non-merits disposition.

What did the court decide?

Interim orders passed by the STAT in MVARP Nos. 62/2022, 63/2022 and 64/2022 were extended for a period of 15 days.

Muhammed Younus Vs The Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1MUHAMMED YOUNUS
S/O. PAKRAN, ANANDIYIL, AYANCHERY POST,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.
PIN – 673 541

¶7

2ABDUL KHADER C
S/O. MAMMAD, CHALATH HOUSE,
THIRUVANGOOR, CHEMANCHERY, KOILANDY,
KOZHIKODE , PIN – 673 304

¶8

3JAYARAJ
ATHULYA, CHEMANCHERI,
THIRUVANGOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN – 673 304

¶9

BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN – 673 101

¶12

2THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN – 673 101

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) No. 38 of 2023

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

---------------------------------------

¶20

WP(C) No. 38 of 2023

¶21

--------------------------------------

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2023

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶25

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to permit the 1st petitioner to continue his service with stage carriage No. KL-58/B-189 on the route Ayancheri-Vatakara-Kozhikode as LSOS in continuation of Ext.P10 permit, till order is issued by the leaned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶26

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to permit the 2 nd petitioner to continue his service with stage carriage No.KL-13/U-7070 on the route Villiappalli-Vatakara-Kozhikode as LSOS in continuation of Ext.P11 permit, till order is issued by the leaned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶27

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to permit the 3 rd petitioner to continue his service with stage carriage No.KL-56/A-4464 on the route Vatakara-Kozhikode as LSOS in continuation of Ext.P12 permit, till order is issued by the leaned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶28

iv. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems just and fit in the circumstance of the case.

¶29

WP(C) No. 38 of 2023

¶30

¶31

The application for variation of permit as well as conversion of service as LSOS was rejected by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner filed revisions and the STAT granted Exts.P4,P5 and P6 interim orders, which are extended by Exts.P7,P8 and P9. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the STAT is not

¶32

sitting and the interim orders cannot be extended though they moved applications as evident by Exts.P13,P14 and P15. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

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

¶34

Admittedly, these revisions are pending before the STAT. Already interim orders are passed in these revisions by the STAT. Admittedly the STAT is not sitting now. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the interim orders can be extended for a period of 15 days. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and the STAT is free to pass appropriate orders in the revisions.

¶35

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of, extending the interim orders passed by the STAT in M.V.A.R.P Nos. 62/2022, 63/2022 and 64/2022 for a

¶36

period of 15 days from today.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

AMR

WP(C) No. 38 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38/2023

¶43

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶44

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED` `11.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO` `THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED` `11.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO` `THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED` `11.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO` `THE 3RD PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DIRECTION DATED` `13.7.2022 IN MP NO.500/2022 IN MVARP` `NO.62/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED` `STAT, FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER,` `CHALLENGING EXT.P1.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DIRECTION DATED` `13.7.2022 IN MP NO.502/2022 IN MVARP` `NO.63/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED` `STAT, FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER,` `CHALLENGING EXT.P2.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DIRECTION DATED` `13.7.2022 IN MP NO.504/2022 IN MVARP` `NO.64/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED` `STAT, FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER,` `CHALLENGING EXT.P3.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 IN` `MP NO.1071/2022 IN MVARP NO.62/2022, ON` `THE FILE OF THE LEARNED STAT, FILED BY THE` `1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 IN` `MP NO.1073/2022 IN MVARP NO.63/2022, ON` `THE FILE OF THE LEARNED STAT, FILED BY THE` `2ND PETITIONER.`

¶45

WP(C) No. 38 of 2023

¶46

¶47

`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `MP NO.1075/2022 I` `THE FILE OF THE L` `3RD PETITIONER.`	`ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 IN` `N MVARP NO.64/2022, ON` `EARNED STAT, FILED BY THE`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ON 05.11.2022 BY` `RESPECT OF STAGE` `58 B 189, OPERATI` `- VATAKARA - KOZH` `PETITIONER.`	`TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN` `CARRIAGE BEARING NO. KL` `NG ON THE ROUTE AYANCHERI` `IKODE, OWNED BY THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ON 11.11.2022 BY` `RESPECT OF STAGE` `13 U 7070, OPERAT` `VILLIAPPALLI - VA` `BY THE 2ND PETITI`	`TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN` `CARRIAGE BEARING NO. KL` `ING ON THE ROUTE` `TAKARA - KOZHIKODE, OWNED` `ONER.`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ON 05.11.2022 BY` `RESPECT OF STAGE` `56 A 4464, OPERAT` `- KOZHIKODE, OWNE`	`TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN` `CARRIAGE BEARING NO. KL` `ING ON THE ROUTE VATAKARA` `D BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF INTERIM ORDER` `NO.62 SUBMITTED B` `BEFORE THE LEARNE`	`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION` `DATED 30.12.2022 IN MVARP` `Y THE 1ST PETITIONER,` `D STAT.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF INTERIM ORDER` `NO.63 SUBMITTED B` `BEFORE THE LEARNE`	`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION` `DATED 30.12.2022 IN MVARP` `Y THE 2ND PETITIONER,` `D STAT.`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF INTERIM ORDER` `NO.64 SUBMITTED B` `BEFORE THE LEARNE`	`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION` `DATED 30.12.2022 IN MVARP` `Y THE 3RD PETITIONER,` `D STAT.`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `IN W.P. (C) NO.23` `CASES RENDERED BY`	`JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2021` `200/2021 AND CONNECTED` `THIS HON'BLE COURT.`

Muhammed Younus v. The Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Younus v. The 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

Shabeer @ Shabba Vs State of Kerala

Saji Mathew Vs Firoz Khan. a

K.G.Bhaskaran Nair Vs Vishnu Raj IAS

Alex Jacob Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Benazeer Riyas Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Ramesan M.K. Vs District Judge, Kasaragod