Disposed

Aseem. J.S v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC1 Mar 2023WP(C)/6928/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking directions for reconsideration of his representation regarding bus timings and convening a fresh settlement. Court directed respondent to consider Ext.P4 after an opportunity of hearing and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation after opportunity of hearing and pass orders within three months.

Aseem. J.S Vs Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶2

WP(C) NO. 6928 OF 2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

ASEEM. J.S
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN. K, ASEEM MANZIL, BLOCK NO. 2,
MEERANVETTIKKARAIKKAKAM PERINGAMMALA P.O,
THENNOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,,
PIN - 695563
BY ADVS.
P.V.ANOOP
PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
NAVJYOTH S.
ANJU R S.
ANTONY THOMAS

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101

¶7

2THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101

¶8

SMT DEEPA V, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶9

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
01.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C) No. 6928 of 2023 2

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶13

i)To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, or order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation or within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶14

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to convene a fresh settlement of timings to revise the entire time of the petitioner’s stage carrier.

¶15

Sri. P.V Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶16

submits that Ext.P4 request has been submitted by the petitioner for rescheduling the entire timings of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-32 1143. However, the same was not considered in accordance with law. His

¶17

prayer for expeditious consideration of the same.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P4 is in

¶19

order and is pending, appropriate decision shall be taken in accordance with law.

¶20

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

¶21

writ petition, the submissions made across the bar, and the facts and

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 6928 of 2023 3

¶23

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶24

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein and other affected parties, if any.

¶25

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶30

IAP

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 6928 of 2023 4

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6928/2023

¶33

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶34

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED` `TIMINGS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED VEHICLE` `DATED 15.03.2022`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ENQUIRY REPORT` `ON APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT,` `DATED 05.04.2022`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT DATED 30.09.2022`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT DATED NIL`
`RESPONDENTS’` `EXHIBITS:`	`NIL`

Aseem. J.S v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aseem. J.S v. 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

Georgekutty Vs James P.A

Sunil Vs Vidyasagar (Owner)

Femina Siyad Vs the Secretary

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School Vs 1. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Saran.C.R Vs Rani Chandrasekharan

Sabir M.A. Vs the Secretary