High Court of KeralaWP(C)/36067/2015disposed of

Narayanan Nair v. The Secretary

2015-12-094 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36067 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS VANIYANKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.MADAPEEDIKA, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR-670 001. R BY ADV.K.A.SANJEETHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 36067 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY SKS P.A TO JUDGE

K. HARILAL, J.

------------------------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No. 36067 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December , 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 58 E/1179 and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Andaloor Kavu - Vadagara with a set of timings, which was given several years back. 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 circumstance, the petitioner preferred Ext.P.1 application before the respondent, seeking revision of his own timings. Thus, his only prayer is to consider Ext.P.1 and pass orders, so as to remove the clash between the timings of the petitioner's vehicle and that of others. According to the petitioner, issuance of temporary permit is beneficial to the travelling public also. 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)

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments to the limited prayer to issue a direction to dispose of Ext.P1 application at the earliest.

4. Having regard to the grievance highlighted in Ext.P1 application, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) sks/