Muraleedharan Pillai v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36685 of 2015 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- C.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MAYA BHAVAN, KATTAYIL, ODANAVATTOM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA.

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT :

------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691 001 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).NO.36685/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13/8/2015.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.36685 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4 th day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 02 T/5400 and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Kottarakara Private Bus stand - Kollam Andamukkam 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, the revision of timings is beneficial to the travelling public also. To substantiate his right to get revision of the existing timings, the petitioner

W.P.(C) No.36685 of 2015 -: 2 :- 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 DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge