Thomas George vs Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 7045 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.3895 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

              THOMAS GEORGE
              AGED 66 YEARS
              S/O.GEORGE, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, YMCA COLONY, SHORNUR,
              PALAKKAD.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.M.JITHESH MENON
              INDU.K
              SRI.P.G.MAHESHKUMAR
              BRIJESH R

RESPONDENT:

              SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
              PALAKKAD, CIVIL LINES, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3895 OF 2021(J)
                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

The petitioner approached this Court contending

that Ext.P2 application for revision of timing in respect of

stage carriage on the route Chellakkara - Pattambi has

not been finalised and sought for finalising the timing.

This Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 7.06.2019, directed

the respondent to pass an order within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Now, the petitioner has come up again

contending that Ext.P2 and later Ext.P5 request for

revision of timings have not been considered by the

respondent.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader on

instructions submitted that though notice was issued,

objections were raised and timing conference was fixed,

due to spread of pandemic, meeting could not held.

3. It is evident that Ext.P3 judgment was

pronounced in 07.06.2019. The pandemic arose in WP(C).No.3895 OF 2021(J)

March, 2020. Virtually, the respondent was sleeping over

the direction of this Court, which is a conduct liable to be

deprecated and a matter to be seriously looked upon.

However, granting one opportunity to the respondent

herein, to comply with the direction, there will be a

direction to the respondent to call for a report form the

AMVI and on the basis of it, after hearing the objectors,

pass final order on Ext.P2 and Ext.P5, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

4. If for any reason, it is likely that the above

process cannot be completed within six weeks due to

reasons beyond his control, he shall on the basis of the

AMVI report and considering the objections raised, shall

consider Ext.P2 as provisional timing and issue orders

within four weeks as above. It is made clear, if the

second option is availed by the respondent, provisional

timing will continue till the final orders are passed in a

timing conference. This will not confer any right on the

petitioner to insist that provisional timing should be WP(C).No.3895 OF 2021(J)

adopted as the final timing. It is informed to the

respondent that if for any reason, the above order is not

complied within the stipulated time, unpleasant orders

will follow. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

For reporting compliance post on 29.03.2021.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/1-3 WP(C).No.3895 OF 2021(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL FEBRUARY 2005 ISSUING A SET OF TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONERS SERVICE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.03.2019 WITH THE PROPOSED TIMINGS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15521/2019 DATED 07.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.02.2020 RELATING TO ITEM 4.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.01.2021.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE