← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8566/2015disposed of

Habeeb Kannu v. Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

2015-03-18Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8566 of 2015 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ HABEEB KANNU, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUNJU, MINI BHAVAN, VENJARAMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.ZIYAD SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER SRI.T.A.PRAKASH SRI.K.M.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS:

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

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

2. R.S. SHYNE, CONDUCTOR, KSRTC SUB DEPOT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8566 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT. P1 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2014 PASSED BY THE DTO, ATTINGAL.

EXT.P2 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 20/12/2014 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 8566 OF 2015 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

A minor penalty of censure has been imposed on the second respondent under Ext.P1 memorandum. The same has been challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P2 revision petition with the first respondent. The petitioner seeks an expeditious consideration of Ext.P2 revision petition in the circumstances. 2.

The first respondent expresses a doubt as regards the maintainability of Ext.P2 revision petition. Firstly it is contended that the petitioner is not a party to Ext.P1 memorandum. Secondly it is contended that a third party is not entitled to maintain a petition for revision. Thirdly it is contended that Ext.P2 revision petition is at any rate barred by limitation. The above aspects are to be considered by the first respondent at the time of final hearing.

3.

I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 revision petition within a period of two months. The same shall be done with notice to the petitioner as well as the second respondent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd