Kerala High Court
Shameer Basheer vs The Secretary on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10001 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SHAMEER BASHEER,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. BASHEER, KALLUKOMBIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686002.
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10001 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit which
was originally allotted to his stage carriage No.KL-33/B 5790
on the basis of Ext.P1 timing. In the meanwhile, circular was
issued by the State Transport Authority prescribing uniform
running time for all services, which was finalised and settled
after hearing all persons. The petitioner was directed to
keep in abeyance the order, till timing of other services are
also modified in accordance with the said circular. Now, the
petitioner states that all the services have been allotted
timing in accordance with D3 order referred to in Ext.P2
and now the petitioner's service will have to be operated in
accordnace with Ext.P2, in parity with other services. The
grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 application has not
been considered till now.
2. The learned senior Government Pleader pointed
out that on verification of the records, it was found that the
vehicle KL-33/B 5790, was granted permit earlier and was
replaced with effect from 06.07.2011. The vehicle which
WP(C) NO. 10001 OF 2021
was so replaced, is not mentioned in Ext.P3 and accordingly
the application could not be processed. It was further
pointed out by the learned senior Government Pleader that
most of the vehicles in the Changanassery - Pachima route
are not plying in accordance with the timing allotted and it
was reported that there was a competition among the
vehicles running in that route. Hence, a field study is liable
to be conducted by deputing a competent officer to report
on it. Only thereupon, Ext.P3 can be considered.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned senior Government Pleader.
4. Having considered the entire facts and the limited
prayer, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a
direction that the petitioner shall file a statement disclosing
the number of the vehicle, which has now replaced
KL-33/B 5790. Thereupon, the authority shall, after
conducting the enquiry as mentioned earlier by the
Government Pleader and on the basis of all inputs and after
giving a reasonable opportunity to all concerned to raise
their objections if any, pass appropriate orders within a
WP(C) NO. 10001 OF 2021
period of two months from the date of receipt of a fresh
statement, to be submitted in addition to Ext.P3 application
as mentioned above.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
WP(C) NO. 10001 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 14.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
RESPONDENT DATED 23.4.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 28.12.2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S
EXHIBITS NIL
