Muhammed vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 12213 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1943

                        WP(C).No.9756 OF 2021(T)


PETITIONER:

               MUHAMMED,
               AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA,
               KOLLAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KARAKKUNNU P.O,
               MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

RESPONDENT:

               THE SECRETARY,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
               CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O, PIN - 676 505,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


               BY GP SMT.DEEPA NARAYAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.9756 of 2021
                                     2


                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                         W.P.(C)No.9756 of 2021
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
               Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed for issuing appropriate direction,

directing the respondent to implement Ext.P2 order of the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was granted with fresh

regular permit to operate service on the route Kalikavu-Tirur-Thelppara

subject to settlement of timing. According to the petitioner, a timing

conference was convened on 18.2.2020 to settle the timings and the

timings have been settled. Aggrieved by the said settlement of timing,

the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation. Thereafter, the petitioner

approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal as

per Ext.P2 order, directed the respondent to consider his representation

and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, within two months. The

grievance of the petitioner is that the directions in Ext.P2 have not been

complied by convening a timing conference in view of Covid-19 pandemic

and it will not be held in near future. The counsel for the petitioner

submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court passed Ext.P3

judgment.

W.P.(C)No.9756 of 2021

2. Heard.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the existing

pandemic situation, the above process as directed in Ext.P2 has not been

completed.

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Senior Government Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition itself by directing that the timing suggested by the petitioner

shall be treated as provisional timing after getting a report from the AMVI

as to whether timing clashes with the timing of the existing operators

and also the convenience of travelling public. It shall be ensured that the

timing proposed does not clash with the timing of the existing operators.

This exercise shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment. The timing so fixed will continue to be in

existence till final timings are settled in a timing conference. It is made

clear that, this timing will be purely provisional and will not be treated as

conferring any right on the petitioner to insist that it should be treated as

final timing.

Sd/-

P.V.Kunhikrishnan Judge

vpv W.P.(C)No.9756 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P.

NO.54/2020 DATED 07.03.2020 PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.273/2021 DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//true copy//

P.A. to Judge