P.P.Mohammed Ali v. Regional Transport Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 27753 of 2015 (T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- P.P.MOHAMMED ALI PUTHANPEEDIKA HOUSE PULPATTA MALAPPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------- 1.

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CIVIL STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505 2.

JAYAPRAKASH S/O. GOVINDA VARRIER KAILASA MANDIRAM THIRUVALI (VIA) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 121 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 27753 of 2015 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT GRANTED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION NO. KL-05-R-3947 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C6/4237/96/M DATED 30.08.1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 5.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO. KL-10 S 7195 EXHIBIT P6.

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2015 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 27753 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was very much present when the timings were finalised on 17.08.2015 to operate services. The petitioner on the very next day (18.08.2015) has filed Ext. P6 objection to the timings. The writ petition has been filed seeking to consider Ext. P6 objection by the first respondent.

2.

The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the proceedings dated 17.08.2015 if he is aggrieved. A revision lies under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is upto the petitioner to establish that there is a clash in the timings with the services operated by the second respondent. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner as above.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE