Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35872/2019 of RAHEES Vs THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORIY on 31 December 2019
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35872 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER/S: RAHEES AGED 38 YEARS MAYANGOTTUCHALIL HOUSE, POOVATTUPARAMBA, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 008. BY ADV.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
WP(C).No.35872 OF 2019(H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA,1941
WP(C).No.35872 OF 2019(H)
PETITIONER/S:
RAHEESAGED 38 YEARSMAYANGOTTUCHALIL HOUSE, POOVATTUPARAMBA, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.
BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS
RESPONDENT/S:
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORIYKOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE - WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 620.
SMT. PRINCY XAVIER- GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operatoron the route Kuttikadavu-Kozhikode with stage carriagevehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-44/966. According to thepetitioner, the timings in respect of the vehicle was issuedas early as on 22.3.2003.
2. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petitionthat, due to the introduction of new services, change oftimings of other services on the same route, there isunnecessary and unhealthy competition, which is causinginconvenience to the travelling public. Therefore, thepetitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application seeking formodification of the time schedule due to the availability ofvacant timings.
3. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 judgment passedby this Court in similar circumstances directing therespondent to consider revision of timings.
4. The petitioner has further asserted that Ext.P1application is statutory in nature, and the respondent isduty-bound to consider the same within a time frame. Heapprehends that if not directed by this Court, therespondent may not consider Ext.P1 application.
5. Heard Adv.Stalin Peter Davis, the learned counselfor the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forthe respondent.
6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner hassubmitted Ext.P1 application seeking revision of timing ofthe above stage carriage vehicle and the same is pendingconsideration before the respondent since 9.12.2019, andthat this Court by Ext.P2 judgment has in similarcircumstances directed the respondent to consider asimilar application, I deem it appropriate and expedient todirect the respondent to take up Ext.P1 application andconsider the same, in accordance with law, after affordingthe petitioner and all other affected persons operating inthe same route an opportunity of being heard. Needfulshall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, WP(C).No.35872 OF 2019(H)
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ma
Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
P.S to Judge
WP(C).No.35872 OF 2019(H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE SIMILAR JUDGMENT INWPC 34667/19 DATED 18.12.2019.