High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6828/2015disposed of

K.V.Sathyan v. Regional Transport Authority

2015-03-04Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6828 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- K.V.SATHYAN, KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM.P.O., KODUNGALLURE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 002.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 002.

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH R3 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 6828 of 2015 (C) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.8.2011.

EXHIBIT P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.387/2011 DATED 30.9.2014.

EXHIBIT P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.11.2014. EXHIBIT P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED TIME SCHEDULE.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

- NIL -------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6828 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved with the settlement of timings. The petitioner had applied for a variation of permit. However on the ground that there are more trips than permissible in a notified route, the RTA rejected the same. The petitioner was before the RTA challenging the said order. The petitioner was directed to file a modified proposal without increasing the number of trips. The petitioner submitted and the same was considered by Ext.P3. In fact, in Ext.P3 it was noticed that there is actually increase in trips which would not be permitted. The petitioner contends that it was on an inadvertent omission that such proposal was made and now he has submitted a modified proposal at Ext.P4 before the RTA. In such circumstances, the RTA shall consider such modified proposal after hearing the KSRTC in the next meeting convened, if possible. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE smv //true copy// P.A to Judge