Sabu M.S. v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21928 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- SABU.M.S., MANGALATH PUTHENPURAYIL, P.O.KLLUVAYAL, IRITTY, KANNUR DIST.

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR-670 002

2. P.T. CHANDY, S/O.THOMAS, PANTHAMANCHOTTIL, AICHERY, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DIST -670 631 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 21928 of 2015 (M) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE PETITIONERS SERVICE DT. 11/10/2014 EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUING TIMING IN RESPECT OF KL-05/AB 3555 DT. 8/10/2013 EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 8/1/2015 EXT.P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 31/1/2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL ----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21928 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 & P4 objections. 2.

The petitioner is an existing operator, operating on the route between Kalluvayal and Chandanakampara via Thaliparamba. The 2nd respondent is also conducting service with a common sector from Iritty to Thaliparamba having a distance of 46 km. As the service being operated by the 2nd respondent was under default for three years, keeping the permit under suspended animation, the petitioner's service was issued with the timing taking into consideration the vacant timings. When the 2nd respondent's service resumed service, the 1st respondent, without any settlement of timings or without taking note of the timings in respect of other services, allowed to operate with the old set of timings,

W.P.(C) No. 21928 of 2015 ..2..

which directly clashes with the timing of the petitioner's service; it is alleged. The petitioner's grievance is that though he submitted Exts.P3 & P4 objections before the 1st respondent to make necessary modification in the time schedule of the above service and avoid clash of timings, the same have not be considered yet. Hence, this writ petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader in the matter. Considering the nature of the submission and the nature of the relief sought for, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 & P4 after affording the petitioner and the 2nd respondent an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-