Lawrence v. The Secretary R.T.A.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 37045 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- LAWRENCE, CHENATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON.

RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 37045 of 2015 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1 :

COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. P2 :

COPY OF ONE OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO OTHER SERVICES AT THE RATE OF 1.50 MINUTES PER KM.

P3 :

COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REVISION OF TIMINGS.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.37045 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8 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 -45/H-1555 and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Kodungallur - Thrissur - Guruvayur 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.P3 application before the respondent, seeking revision of his own timings. Thus, his only prayer is to consider Ext.P3 and pass orders, so as to remove the clash between the timings of the petitioner's

W.P.(C) No. 37045 of 2015 -: 2 :- 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 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.P3 application at the earliest.

4. Having regard to the grievance highlighted in Ext.P3 application, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 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. 37045 of 2015 -: 3 :- This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge