Rasheed.A. v. Rajendran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/29TH POUSHA, 1936 WA.No. 11 of 2015 () IN WP(C).29909/2014 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29909/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-11-2014 APPELLANT(S)/3RD PARTIES IN THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------

1. RASHEED.A. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, SHAREENA MANZIL, ANJUMOORTHY P.O. ANAKKAPARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2. V.M.KABEER AGED 54 YEARS S/O.V.A.MUTHU, 12/17, THAVAKKAL MANZIL KAMMANTHARA, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD-678683.

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER/RSPONDENT:

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

1. RAJENDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS OLAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, PADOOR PO, ALATHUR PALAKKAD.

2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 11 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for the first respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.11.2014 in W.P(C).No.29909 of 2014. The writ petitioner had applied for a regular permit and pending consideration, he applied for temporary permit. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 12.11.2014 directed that temporary permit application be considered and allowed for a period of four months. The appellants, who were not party to the Writ Petition, are aggrieved by the timings granted for the temporary permit. They submit that timing conference was convened in March, 2015, but on account of the fact that there is no presettlement of timing, he is suffering loss. The appellants

WA.11/15 submit that they may also request the competent authority for preponing the timing conference.

3. We do not find any error in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge directing for consideration of temporary permit. In so far the clash of the timing is concerned, it is always open for the appellants to approach the competent authority and seek resettlement of timing.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE vgs19/1/15