Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41993/2017 of ANIL KUMAR K.D. Vs THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41993 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ ANIL KUMAR K.D. S/O.DAMOODARAN, ELAKKAM PARAMBIL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 41993 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:------------------------ ANIL KUMAR K.D. S/O.DAMOODARAN, ELAKKAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR 683513.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM 682030.
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41993 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX=========
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL-45-1314.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL----------------------- DST
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.41993 OF 2017
----------------------------------
Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
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.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner's grievance is that his application for revision of timings, namely Exhibit P2, has not beenconsidered by the respondent in spite of statutoryrequirement for its consideration.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for therespondent.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P2 application forrevision of timings before the respondent, there is no legalimpediment in considering the same in accordance withlaw.
In such circumstances, I direct the respondent totake up Exhibit P2 application made by the petitioner anddispose of the same and grant revised timings as prayed W.P.(C) NO.41993/ 2017 2
for by him, if there is no legal impediment in doing so,after affording the petitioner an opportunity of beingheard, within a period of three weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
IAP