Kerala High Court
Rijo C.J vs The Secretary on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.1813 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER:
RIJO C.J, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.JOY, CHITTADI POUND 74,
VELUPADAM, VARANDARAPPALLY,
THRISSUR-680303.
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680003.
2 ABEESH M.V.,
S/O.VISWAMBARAN,
MACHAT HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O.,
KOTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680662.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).1813/2021
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner herein is a regular permit holder on the route
Kuthambully-Kodungallur in respect of stage carriage KL-11AX-1476.
Petitioner obtained the permit and vehicle from his predecessor in
interest, one Gireesh. Petitioner claims that he is at present operating
without any conflict with the time schedule issued to the second
respondent's service.
2. According to the writ petitioner, second respondent has
preferred a request for revision of timing claiming that, timings of
another service operating on another route is vacant and his timings are
to be revised. On coming to know of the same that it was notified, the
predecessor of petitioner in interest preferred W.P(C).No.9187 of 2019
before this Court. Thereafter, second respondent moved this Court by
preferring W.P(C).No.34423 of 2019, wherein, a direction for
consideration of the revision of timings, after hearing all the parties was
granted. It seems that, second respondent thereafter initiated contempt
of court proceedings as C.O.C.No.2112 of 2020. According to the
petitioner, it was submitted by the Secretary, RTA that, he has under a
pressure due to contempt proceedings initiated against him and unless
the petitioner moves before this Court and get a direction to consider the
objections, he will not be in a position to entertain the objection of the
W.P(C).1813/2021
petitioner. The limited prayer sought by the petitioner is for
consideration of his objections against the proposal of revision, at the
earliest, of the second respondent herein.
3. The contention of the second respondent is that, he has sought
for a revision of timings on the vacant slot of another vehicle
No.KL8E1404 evidenced by Ext.R2(a).
4. The essential contention between the petitioner and the
second respondent seems to be that, there is a clash of timing in relation
to both the vehicle to the extent of overlapping route in the stretch
Thrissur-Kodungallur.
5. Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined to direct the
first respondent to take up the matter and pass appropriate orders
regarding the revision of timings on the basis of a field report obtained
from the AMVI and after giving a reasonable opportunity to all the
objectors, specifically to the second respondent herein. Regarding the
overlapping of timing, if any, a decision shall be taken by the first
respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in
accordance with law.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
W.P(C).1813/2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.9187/2019 DATED 05.4.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.34423/2019 DATED 17.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STATUS REPORT DATED
21.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
11.01.2021.
