High Court of KeralaWP(C)/36585/2015disposed of

Davis M.P. v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

2015-12-034 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36585 of 2015 (W) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

-------------------------- DAVIS M.P., MULLOOR HOUSE, KONGORPPILLY, ALUVA.

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S) :

---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 36585 of 2015 (W) -------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

----------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. HARILAL, J.

------------------------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No.36585 of 2015-W ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AK 9944 and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Vyttila Hub - North Parur 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.P1 application before the respondent, seeking revision of his own timings. Thus, his only prayer is to consider Ext.P1 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

W.P. (C) No.36585 of 2015 -: 2 :- 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) KLT 493].

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. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge