High Court of KeralaWP(C)/17379/2015disposed of

Abdul Jaleel v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-06-11Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/21ST JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17379 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

-------------------- ABDUL JALEEL S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PUTTEKKAD, FEROKE KOZHIKODE.

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT :

------------------------ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 17379 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 20/5/15 ON THE ROUTE KARUVANTHIRUTHIMEDICAL COLLEGE WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL 11/S 504. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/6/2015 IN WP(C) NO. 16458/2015.

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

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.17379 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P1 request submitted by the petitioner for revision of timings within a time bound manner.

2. The petitioner is a regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Karuvanthiruthi-Medical College with stage carriage bearing No.KL 11/S 504. The petitioner alleges that the timing of his service was issued on 9.3.2001 and thereafter several services have been introduced on the route in question. According to him, there were several surrender of permits, including the revision of timing of certain services. All these reasons constitute the need for change of existing timing. The petitioner further alleges that after the issuance of timing to him on 9.3.2001, the timing issued to other services happened to be the same. Therefore, he sought another time.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 request to revise his timings. His grievance is that if action is not taken on Ext.P1, the timing sought for by him might be taken away by other aspiring operators.

WP(C)17379/15 -:2:- However, the respondent is not considering the request. It is with this background, this writ petition is filed.

4. Arguments have been heard.

Considering the nature of the submission made and the relief sought for, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 submitted by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate early action, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition as well as copy of this judgment before the respondent at the earliest.

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj