← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/27572/2015disposed of

V. Bhaskaran v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-09-15Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/24TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 27572 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- V. BHASKARAN,S/O.E.NARAYANAN NAIR, KOLLOT HOUSE, BANDADKA.P.O., KASARAGOD.

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121

2. MOHAMMED KUNHI.C.A., S/O.C.A.ABOOBACKER, CHUNDUVALAPPIL HOUSE, VIDYANAGAR.P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN-671 123 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).NO.27572/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 COPY OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 31/03/2015 P2 COPY OF THE DECISION IN THE MEETING OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 31/03/2015 P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 24/8/2015 P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08/09/2015 P5 COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE KL-14/D7497. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

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

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 27572 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

The fact that the second respondent has withdrawn the application for variation of permit is no ground to scrap Ext. P3 proceedings for settlement of timings. This is because Ext. P3 settlement of timings is not rested solely on the ground of variation of permit.

2.

The Government Pleader points out that the timings was altered last when the application for variation was originally allowed. But then variation granted was set aside by this Court and the matter remitted.

3.

It is after the remit has the second respondent withdrawn the application for variation. But then the entire scenario has changed warranting the settlement of timings at the earliest.

4.

It is clarified that the settlement as scheduled in Ext. P3 notice can go on and that Ext. P4 objection put in by the petitioner as regards the settlement of timings shall also be

W.P.(C). NO. 27572 OF 2015 2 considered. The fact that the permit issued to the second respondent has since expired shall also be taken note of by the first respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS