High Court of KeralaWP(C)/25601/2015disposed of

Soney John v. The Secretary

2015-08-20Honourable 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 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/29TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25601 of 2015 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- SONEY JOHN, CHALIPLACKAL HOUSE, KADALIKKADU.P.O., VAZHAKKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT :

------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI-685 603 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).NO.25601/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 10/8/2015.

P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.16458/2015 DATED 3/6/2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25601 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his application for revision of his own timings. 2.

The petitioner is the stage carriage operator on the route between Vazhithala and Vannappuram and the regular permit is issued in respect of stage carriage No.KL 17 M 1399. The petitioner alleges that he is operating on the route in question for quite some time. Subsequent to the introduction of the petitioner's service, it is seen that some of the timings are in clash with other services and some of the timings are not in public interest. The petitioner intends to make slight changes to the petitioner's service so as to avoid the clash of timings. With this intention, the petitioner submitted a request for revision of timings of his own service. The petitioner further alleges that Rule 145 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules provides for such circumstances and there are decisions

W.P.(C) No. 25601 of 2015 -2in favour of such consideration such as 2004(1) KLT 493. The respondent has not passed any orders on Ext.P2 representation so far; it is alleged.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader in the matter. Considering the nature of the reliefs and the nature of the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 representation, after affording the petitioner and the affected operators 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 the copy of this judgment before the respondent at the earliest. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Scl.