← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/23533/2015disposed of

Reji Varghese v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-08-10Honourable 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 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/19TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 23533 of 2015 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

----------------------- REJI VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, NIRAVATH HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS:

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

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

2. SAJITH T.S., THOPPIL HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O, ANGAMALY. PIN-683 572 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 23533 of 2015 (N) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ON THE ROUTE VADATTUPARA -ANGAMALY MEERANCITY.

P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ON THE ROUTE VADATTUPARAANGAMALY MEERANCITY. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE.

P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23533 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P4 objection for the revision of the second respondent's timings.

2.

The petitioner is an existing operator operating with a settled set of timings. The petitioner alleges that he is aggrieved by allotment of one time slot to the second respondent's service and at present both services are operating in acute clash whereby travelling public are put to difficulties. Faced with such a situation, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 request to avert clash of timings between the petitioner as well as that of the second respondent's service as relating to one time slot from Angamalay to Perumbavoor alone. Though the petitioner approached the office of the first respondent on more than one occasion, the request for avoiding the time clash has not been considered till this date;

W.P.(C) No. 23533 of 2015 -2it is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter. Considering the nature of the submissions and the nature of the relief sought for, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 objection after affording the petitioner and the second respondent 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, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition as well as a copy of this judgment before the first respondent at the earliest.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Scl.