High Court of KeralaWP(C)/14127/2015disposed of

Proushad v. The Secretary

2015-05-25Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2015/4TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 14127 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- PROUSHAD, S/O.YOUSEF, H.NO.4/94(2/259), PUTHANPURA HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM, KARIMUGAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

2. NOUSHAD.N.Y, S/O.YOUSEF, AKBAR MANZIL, KULAYATTIKKARA.P.O., ARAYENKAVU, ERNAKULAM - 682 315.

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 14127 of 2015 (M) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

----------------------------------- EXT. P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-07/AG-8218 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, MUVATTUPUZHA VIDE ORDER NO.17/55151/2010/EM DATED 28.2.2011. EXT. P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXT.R2(A) :

TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE ON 7.5.2013.

EXT.R2(B) :

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2014. EXT.R2(C) :

TRUE COPY OF NOTICE REGARDING TIMING CONFERENCE IN RESPECT OF FOUR STAGE CARRIAGES COMMENCING FROM 28.4.2015.

EXT.R2(D) :

TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.2015.

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

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.14127 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of May, 2015

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P2 representation by the first respondent, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. The petitioner alleges that he as well as the second respondent are operating on routes substantially overlapping each other and without hearing the petitioner, a revision of timing was effected as far as the timings of the second respondent are concerned. According to the petitioner, there was no notice regarding the timing conference.

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent, inviting my attention to Ext.R2(d), submitted that the said proceedings was issued by the first respondent after hearing 22 operators and, therefore, the consideration of Ext.P2 shall be unsettling the issue covered by Ext.R2(d) as far as the other persons are concerned.

WP(C)14127/15 -:2:- Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 after affording the petitioner and the second respondent an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

It is hereby made clear that the decision in Ext.R2(d) so far as it relates to the other operators shall stand undisturbed. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj