High Court of KeralaWP(C)/17004/2015disposed of

Rabeesh v. The Secretary

2015-06-08Honourable 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 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17004 of 2015 (A) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------- RABEESH, RASNALAYAM, CHEEKILODE P.O., ATHOLI, KOYILANDY.

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

---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA - 671 101.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 17004 of 2015 (A) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.04.2015. EXT.P-2:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16458/2015 DATED 03.06.2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 17004 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 representation submitted by the petitioner for the revised timings of his stage carriage.

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle KL - 57 J 2114 covered by regular permit on the route Peruvannamuzhi - Vadakara - Thanikandipalam. The time schedule was initially issued to the petitioner's service years back. It is alleged that subsequent to the allotment of timings to the petitioner, several other services including KSRTC were introduced in the same sector and many permits were surrendered and hence those timings have become vacant. Petitioner intends to make slight changes to the petitioner's service so as to avoid the clash of timings and in public interest. With this intention, he submitted Exhibit P1 representation for revision of timings of his own service by seeking to change of one particular timing of his service from 6.53 p.m. to 6.14 which is a vacant time. For no reasons the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has not passed any

W.P.(c) No. 17004 of 2015 orders on Exhibit P1, it is alleged.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P1 representation within a time frame.

Considering the nature of the submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P1 representation after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

To facilitate an early action, the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce a copy of this judgment as well as a copy of this writ petition before the respondent at the earliest. A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE DMR/-