Nagesh v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Cum

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 37692 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- NAGESH, PALLIYIL HOUSE, ULAVYPU, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. R BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SMT.SANJEETHA.K.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 37692 of 2015 (J) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXHIBITP1:

TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 17/11/2015 ON THE ROUTE CHERTHALA - VYTTILA WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL 6/F 5817.

EXHIBITP2:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/11/2015 IN WPC.NO.33247/2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

K. HARILAL, J.

======================= W.P.(C).No.37692 of 2015 ======================= Dated this, the 11th 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-6/F 5817 and he has been granted with a regular permit on the route Cherthala-Vyttila via Ottapunna, 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

W.P(C).No.37692 of 2015 -:2:- 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.

The following observation occurring in the 3rd

W.P(C).No.37692 of 2015 -:3:- sentence of paragraph 1 of the judgment dated 11/12/2015 in W.P.(C) No.37692/2015 is deleted as per order dated 13/01/2016 in R.P.19/2016 in W.P.(C) No.37692/2015J.

"In the said circumstance, the petitioner preferred Ext.P1 application before the respondent, seeking revision of his own timings."

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)