Sandeep vs The Secretary

Kerala High Court

Sandeep vs The Secretary on 28 June, 2022

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
         TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 20871 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            SANDEEP
            AGED 40 YEARS
            S/O SANKARAN, KODAVAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADACHIRA-670621.

            BY ADV G.CHITRA



RESPONDENTS:

     1      THE SECRETARY
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, KUNNATHUMEDU,
            PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.

     2      MOHAMMED NAZAR
            S/O SULAIMAN HAJI, 9/238, SAHYADRI COLONY, JOHARA MANZIL,
            CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678007.

            GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20871 OF 2022
                            2

                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the existing operator operating service on the route Mannarkkad- Guruvayoor via Pattambi with his stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-52/P 7032. According to the petitioner, as per the set of timings issued to the said service, the service proceeds from Pattambi at 11.02 am towards Guruvayoor. The petitioner states that, the service of the 2nd respondent on the route Palakkad-Guruvayoor via Pattambi was issued with a set of timings that is to start from Palakkad at 8.27 am, passing Pattambi at 10.32 am towards Guruvayoor. The petitioner submits that, the said service is now conducting operation at 10.59 am just 3 minutes ahead of the petitioner's service, thereby creating clash of timings from Pattambi to Guruvayoor. Accordingly, the petitioner WP(C) NO. 20871 OF 2022 3 has submitted Ext.P1 objection before the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has got a duty to see that every operator operates the service strictly in accordance with their time schedule.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. In view of the direction I propose to issue, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that a report is called for by the 1st respondent from the Joint RTO, Pattambi and the report is awaited and once the report is submitted, Ext.P1 objection of the petitioner will be disposed of.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 objection of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the WP(C) NO. 20871 OF 2022 4 2nd respondent expeditiously after obtaining the report from the Joint RTO, Pattambi.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-