Writ Appeal filed against a High Court Single Judge direction to consider a representation for a timing conference. The Division Bench distinguished cited precedent as facts differed and deemed the appeal inappropriate as no direction for timing alteration was issued.
Writ Appeal disposed of; no substantive relief granted.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940
W.A.No.1310 of 2018 IN WPC. 19448/2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19448/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13.6.2018
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
JOHN MATHEW VARIPALAKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O, KARICHAL, KOTTAYAM-686 086
BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS
R BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ. &
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.A.No.1310 of 2018
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ.
The appellant was the second respondent in the W.P.(C)No.19448 of 2018. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction for disposal of the Ext.P1 representation of the permit holder of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/D-959 operating on the route Kottayam-Vadasserykara. According to the applicant, his vehicle timing clashed with the timing of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/H-2601 and therefore, a request was made for convening a timing conference, where these aspects could be considered by the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam.
“3. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 representation with notice to the 2nd respondent also. In case any refixation of running time is found necessary, other operators on the route shall also be put on notice.”
learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decision in M.C.Kumaran v.
W.A.No.1310 of 2018
-:2:-
K.M.Jacob and Another (1995 KHC 214), submits that since the Ext.P1 application was not a statutory application, the learned single Judge should not have issued direction for consideration of the representation. He further contends that when such direction for consideration is issued by the High Court, the Authorities would inevitably treat it as a direction in favour of the writ petitioner and accordingly, alter the stage carriage timing, which will impact the appellant who is operating in the route for the last many decades.
W.A.No.1310 of 2018
-:3:-
learned Judge. In such circumstances, we deem it inappropriate to entertain this Writ Appeal. The same is thus disposed of with the observation that the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam should consider the representation of the writ petitioner on its own merit and more particularly as one that requires him to consider as to whether or not, the timing conference should be convened amongst the interested operators. It is
ordered accordingly.
SD/- Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice
SD/-
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge
vpv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court direction for consideration of a representation is appealable when no specific order altering timings is passed.
Whether the judgment in M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob applies to a request for a timing conference rather than a statutory application for timing change.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and AnotherDistinguished¶32
M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another (1995 KHC 214)
John Mathew Varipalakkal
P.T. Aniyankunju Puthuveetil
The Secretary Regional Transport Authority
Hrishikesh Roy
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
