The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the revision of timings of a stage carriage vehicle. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's objections during a timing conference.
Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's objections in a timing conference within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932
WP(C).No. 10149 of 2010(P)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
M.P. JOY, MANGALATH PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, ATHIYODE.P.O, KOORACHUNDRU, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM.
2. SRI.K. BHASKARAN, KILIVAYIL HOUSE, IRINGALOOR.P.O, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.
R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P(C) NO: 10149 OF 2010
Dated this the 25th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing No: KL-18 C 909 conducting services on the route Kozhikode-Ernakulam South as a limited stop ordinary service. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the request for revision of timings submitted by the second respondent. According to the petitioner there are no circumstances warranting revision of timings of the second respondent. Therefore, he has objected to the revision that is sought for by submitting Exts.P4 and P5 objections. As per judgment in W.P(C) 1086/2010, this Court has directed the objections of the petitioner in the said writ petition also to be considered while deciding whether to revise the timings of the second respondent or not. The petitioner prays for a direction to consider his objections also while finalising the timings of the second respondent . The Learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued.
WPC 10149/2010
2
whether the second respondent's timings are to be revised. The above shall be done in a timing conference convened after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to all other interested persons in this regard. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj
WPC 10149/2010 3
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
M.F.A.NO:
JUDGMENT
Dated:
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's objections to the revision of timings of the stage carriage vehicle should be considered while deciding on the revision.
M.P. JOY
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM
SRI.K. BHASKARAN
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
K.K.DENESAN
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
