Priya K.T. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35896 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- PRIYA K.T., W/O.SANTHOSH, THUPPAYIKAPPADAN HOUSE, PALIYATH VALAPPU, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT:
--------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR - 670 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 35896 of 2015 (J) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.10.2013. EXT. P2 :
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2015. EXT. P3 :
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.16458/2015 DATED 3.6.2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.35896 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27 th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-13/AE-1033 [old vehicle No.KL-13/S-5335] and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Muthukuda - Payangadi with a set of timings, which was given several years back and the petitioner is operating the vehicle with that timing till now, without any change in the existing timings. After the issuance of the set of timings, some of the timings of the service are in clash with other services on the route in question. In the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 request, before the respondent, seeking revision of his own
W.P.(C) No. 35896 of 2015 -: 2 :- timings. Thus, his only prayer is to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders, so as to remove the clash between the timings of the petitioner's vehicle and that of others. To substantiate his right to get revision of the existing timings, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Joji Edattel v. The Secretary, RTA, Idukki [2004(1) KLT 493].
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments to the limited prayer to issue a direction to dispose of Exts.P2 application, at the earliest. 4.
Having regard to the grievance highlighted in Ext.P2 application, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 35896 of 2015 -: 3 :- This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge