Disposed

Suharabi v. the Secretary

Kerala HC13 Mar 2023WP(C)/5606/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a stage carriage owner, sought vacant timings via mandamus. The Government Pleader suggested consideration after hearing objectors. The Court disposed of the petition by directing Respondent to consider Petitioner's request (Ex.P2) after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to consider Petitioner's plea for vacant timings expeditiously after hearing both parties physically or virtually.

Suharabi Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13THDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA,1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5606 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUHARABI

¶8

AGED 45 YEARS

¶9

MONANGATTU HOUSE, THATTUMMAL P.O., CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR,
PIN - 670511.

¶10

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THE SECRETARY

¶13

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121.

¶14

SRI.T R RENJITH, SR GP

¶15

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON13.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 5606 of 2023

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner states that she is the registered owner of a stage

¶20

carriage bearing Registration No.KL-59-9134. She has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

¶21

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction, directing the respondent to consider the plea of the petitioner for vacant timings of S/C KL-13-AJ-5998 within a time frame as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

¶23

three en route operators have filed objection to the request made by the petitioner herein, and according to the learned Government Pleader, the request made by the petitioner can be considered within three months after hearing all sides.

¶24

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the bar, and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶25

a) There will be a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 5606 of 2023

¶27

¶28

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically

¶29

or virtually, to the petitioner herein and the objectors.

¶30

b) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the

¶31

writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶35

Sru

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 5606 of 2023

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5606/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE BY WHICH THE
PETITIONER IS AT PRESENT OPERATING DATED
05.01.2022.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER FOR VACANT TIMINGS OF S/C
KL-13-AJ-5998 DATED 11.01.2022.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION REGARDING
THE VACANCY IS IN EXISTENCE OR NOT PROCURED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED
31.10.2022.
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE VACANT TIMINGS OF S/C
KL-13-AJ-5998 DATED 21.01.2023.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY
SECRETARY R.T.A. KASARAGOD DATED 25.11.2022.

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Suharabi v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suharabi v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Gogoi Vs District Labour Officer

Biju. K.B Vs the District Labour Officer (General)

Ajith.P. Raju Vs Nidhin Jose

Aliyar Em Vs Union of India

Arun Nath, Vs the Secretary

Muhammed M. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority