Ibrahim Kutty E v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/20TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12416 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ IBRAHIM KUTTY E, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. HUSSAIN, ELAVANCHERY HOUSE PAYYANANGADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, MUHAMMED BASHEER E., S/O. MAMMOOTTY HAJI, ELAVANCHERY HOUSE, PAYYANANGADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------- 1.

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM - 676 505 2.

SRI.P.V. SHAMMEER BABU, S/O.ABDU, PUTHANVALAPPIL HOUSE, PANTHAVOOR P.O., KANMANAM, KALPAKANCHERY, (VIA) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-042015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 12416 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.G2/40331/2006/M DATED 04.03.2007.

P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P3: PHOTOCOPYOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.G2/150796/2014/M DATED 10.11.2014.

P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.03.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12416 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a rival operator of the second respondent. The petitioner's grievance is in so far as the second respondent being allowed to operate on a temporary permit on the basis of the proposed timings without any finalisation being made. It is submitted that re-issuance is also effected as per Ext.P3, without any settlement of timing as such. The petitioner is also said to have filed Ext.P2 objection. In such circumstances, if the second respondent's timings have not been finalised in a validly convened timing conference, the same shall be done at any rate within two months from today after issuing notice to the second respondent and after displaying public notice. Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE smv