Devadas U. v. The Secretary, Rta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35782 of 2015 (W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- DEVADAS U.

S/O.UNNI MOOTHAN (LATE), UPPATH HOUSE MALLISSERIPARAMBU, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT:

---------------------------- THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 35782 of 2015 (W) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE EXTRACT OF THE TIME SCHEDULE. EXHIBIT P3.

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS

K. HARILAL, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 35782 of 2015-W -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was an applicant for grant of regular permit on the route Panayur -Ottappalam -Trikkenkode temple. According to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent mistake when the time schedule was fixed for a particular trip which was proposed to be towards Trikkenkode Temple taking note of the offering times at Trikkenkode Temple, that is 4.20 departure from Ottappalam towards Trikkenkode Temple has been settled as towards Panayur at 3.37 to 4.05 i.e, departure from Ottappalam to Panayur instead of Trikkenkode Temple. It is evident from Ext. P1 proposal that the trip was towards Trikkenkode Temple and not to Panayur, according to the petitioner. Even though this mistake was pointed out to the Secretary, R.T.A. and in spite of the fact that he understood this mistake the same has not been corrected so far. 2.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext. P3 representation seeking rectification of the aforesaid mistake before the respondent but the same has

W.P.(C) No. 35782 of 2015-W 2 not been considered so far. This is the grievance ventilated in this writ petition for the relief claimed. 3.

Having regard to the averments in the writ petition and the submissions at the bar this Court of the view that the grievance ventilated in this writ petition deserves to be considered and addressed by the respondent at the earliest.

4.

Hence, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, to facilitate an early disposal. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HARILAL, JUDGE DCS