N.N.Krishna Kishore vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 7922 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4667 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               N.N.KRISHNA KISHORE,
               AGED 47 YEARS,
               S/O.NARAYANAN,
               VADAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE,
               P.O.VIYYOOR, THRISSUR-680 010.

               BY ADV. SHRI.P.DEEPAK

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
               THRISSUR,
               REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
               THRISSUR-680 003.

      2        THE SECRETARY,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
               THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
               THRISSUR-680 003.

      3        MOHANDAS,
               S/O.GOVIDANKUTTY,
               UNITHIRY HOUSE,
               MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU P.O.,
               THRISSUR 680 581.

      4        THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
               ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 011.

               R1,2,4 BY SRI. K.P HARISH, SR.GP.

               R3 BY ADV.SRI.I.DINESH MENON.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4667 OF 2021

                                     2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 08th day of March 2021

The petitioner, aggrieved by the interim

order in M.P. No.721/2020 in MVARP No.38/2020 by

which the Tribunal had directed the 2nd respondent

therein to issue provisional timing or any other

clash free timings to the petitioner therein so as

to enable him to operate the entire daily route as

sanctioned by the RTA has approached this Court. It

was specifically contended by the petitioner herein

that, while the Tribunal, in MVARP No.38/2020 has

granted a stay and by the same Tribunal granted

a relief directing the 2nd respondent therein to

issue provisional set of timings which were

inconsistent to each other and was without taking

into consideration all the relevant factors.

2. It seems that Exhibit P6 permit was granted

subject to settlement of timing. It is seen that

the timing could not be settled as evident from WP(C).No.4667 OF 2021

Exhibit P11. To approve the variation granted by

the RTA along with the timing settled and proposed,

Exhibit P11 discloses that several objections were

raised by the existing operators.

3. Having assimilated the entire facts, I feel

that the writ petition itself can be disposed of, by

directing the 1st respondent to consider the issue of

provisional timing as directed by the learned

Tribunal by Exhibit P16 order considering the

objections raised by the petitioner herein also.

Having considered this, I am inclined to direct the

petitioner herein to file his objections, if any,

within three days from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. The 2nd respondent shall consider

it by calling a report from the M.V.I. and after

analyzing it and having regard to all the

objections, pass appropriate orders as expeditiously

as possible, fixing the provisional timing within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. It is made clear the time

provisionally granted will be subject to final WP(C).No.4667 OF 2021

timing to be fixed in an appropriate timing confront

and will not confer the right to the 2nd respondent

to insist that the provisional timing so granted

should be treated as the final timing.

The petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

SSK/08/03 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE WP(C).No.4667 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 7/8/2025.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DATED 30/10/2009.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE PROPOSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO OPERATE ON THE VARIED ROUTE.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 11/5/2010.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/7/2012 IN WPC NO.14531 OF 2012.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL TIME SCHEDULE PRODUCED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AS EXHIBIT P9 IN WPC NO.34634 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2019 IN WPC NO.34634 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 7/2/2020.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25/2/2020.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION IN MVARP NO.38 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN M.P.NO.200 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN M.P.NO.200 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN M.P.NO.721 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/1/2021 IN M.P.NO.721 OF 2020.

SSK                      //TRUE COPY//               PA TO JUDGE