High Court of KeralaWP(C)/17799/2015disposed of

Brijesh K Thomas v. The Secretary

2015-06-15Honourable 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 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/25TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17799 of 2015 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

--------------------- BRIJESH K. THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KATTAMKOTTIL HOUSE, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT :

------------------------ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY WAYANAD - 673 001.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 17799 of 2015 (Y) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT. P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL-05/K 7560.

EXT. P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.17799 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation submitted by him.

2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Madappillykunnu-Pulpally on the strength of the permit issued to his stage carriage bearing Reg. No.KL-05/K 7560 with Ext.P1 time schedule approved by the respondent on 10.7.2014.

3. The petitioner alleges that in the meeting of the respondent held on 24.3.2015, a fresh permit was granted on the very same route and the timings allotted to the said service were more or less identical to his service. This, according to him, resulted in competition and over-speeding between the two services. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the respondent seeking appropriate

WP(C)17799/15 -:2:- modifications to Ext.P1 time schedule. The petitioner further alleges that along with the said representation, he has also proposed a new time schedule with adequate time gap between the two services.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

Considering the nature of the relief sought for and the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done 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 this judgment as well copy of the writ petition before the respondent at the earliest.

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj