Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41309/2016 of T. KRISHNADAS Vs KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C). NO.41309 of 2016 (K) ----------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- T. KRISHNADAS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, THADATHUMMEL HOUSE, NIT P.O.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C). NO.41309 of 2016 (K)
-----------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
T. KRISHNADAS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR,
AGED 47 YEARS, THADATHUMMEL HOUSE,
NIT P.O., CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MADHU
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KOZHIKODE-673001. KSRTC, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679576. KSRTC, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679576.
4. THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. TRIVANDRUM-695001.
BY ADV.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).41309/2016 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2015.
P2:COPY OF THE TRANSFER REQUEST DATED 25/08/2016.
P3:COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22/11/2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL
KRJ
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.41309 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges his transfer from Poonani to Chenganassery depot that has been issued by the secondrespondent vide Exhibit P3. He has made Exhibit P2 representationagainst Exhibit P3. His grievance is that his representation has notbeen considered and that his transfer has now been effected.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the KSRTC.
3. I see from Exhibit P2 that even though the same is not a statutory representation, it has made reference to various issuesthat are affecting the petitioner prejudicially, if his transfer is madefrom Kozhikode district to Chenganassery. I, therefore, deem itnecessary that Exhibit P2 be considered appropriately by thecompetent authority
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a fervent plea that, while considering Exhibit P2 representation, the competentauthority can also consider if there are any vacancies in Kozhikodedistrict as to retain the petitioner. These are all issues within the WP(C).41309/16
-:2:- domain of the competent authority, while considering Exhibit P2representation.
I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to take up Exhibit P2 representation of the petitionerand to dispose it of after affording the petitioner an opportunity ofbeing heard. Obviously, if there is any vacancy in Kozhikode district,the first respondent would be at liberty to consider the case of thepetitioner for being transferred and appointed in the said vacancy.
krj.31/12
Sd/-Devan Ramachandran, Judge