A writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court on Thursday against the recent hike in the bus fare in the State. The petition was filed by High Court lawyer Basil Attipetty. According to him, the revised fare per km. for ordinary buses was 64 paise, while the minimum charge for ordinary buses had been enhanced from Rs.6 to Rs.7.
In fact, at a minimum charge of Rs.7 the petitioner was entitled to travel at least 5 km. However, he could not travel because the anomaly in the fare stage had not been rectified. He said that in the neighbouring State such as Tamil Nadu, the minimum bus charge for ordinary buses was only Rs.3 and a passenger could travel 10 km at the minimum fare. He said the benefits available in the neighbouring State had been denied to the people in the State. It was a discrimination and the hike order was infringement on Article 14 of the Constitution.
‘Pay lottery prize’Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon on Thursday directed the Department of Lotteries to pay Rs.5 lakh to a Mumbai-based man who had won the State government’s 2011 Pratheeksha lottery.
The Judge ordered the department that the amount be paid within a month. The directive was issued on a writ petition filed by Saroj Subash Nagori against the Lottery Directorate’s rejection of his plea to grant him the prize.
The court said that retaining the prize by the Lottery Department amounted to unlawful enrichment. If at all the department had a case that lottery ticket was purchased in violation of the law, action had to be taken by the appropriate authorities and not by the Lottery Department.
The restriction imposed under the lottery laws would be on the agents and not on the purchaser.
The department submitted that the winner’s plea was rejected by the monitoring committee which securitises such claims.
Plea dismissedA Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon dismissed as withdrawn a batch of petitions filed by several moneylending firms against 'Operation Kuberan' raid. The petitions were filed by 57 moneylending firms in Thrissur district alleging police harassment. The Bench observed that not even a single incident of harassment was mentioned with date and time of alleged raid by the police in the petitions. In the absence of such details, the allegations remained vague. Therefore, it could not be entertained.
