Unknown vs By Adv. Sri.Saju J.Vallyara
2021 Latest Caselaw 9485 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.4910 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER

              SUBRAHMANNIAN.V
              AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O KUNHUKUTTAN, VALAYANGADI HOUSE,
              KOLAPARAMBA P.O.MANJERI, PIN-672 522,
              MALAPPURM DISTRICT

              BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

RESPONDENT:

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


              SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                           2

WP(C).No.4910 OF 2021(K)




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of

stage carriage No.KL-10-BC-7889, filed an

application for revision of timings which was

lastly finalised on 04.04.2017. Ext.P2 is the

application so submitted.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

above application has not been taken up and

considered inspite of the pendency of that

application.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government

Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition with a direction that, the respondent

shall call for a report from the AMVI concerned and

after considering it on the basis of the proposed

timing mentioned in Ext.P2 and after satisfying

WP(C).No.4910 OF 2021(K)

himself that the proposed timing does not clash

with the timings so given to the existing operators

and if there is any clash, by making necessary

modifications, issue a provisional timing to the

petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. This timing will strictly be provisional

till the final timing conference is convened in

accordance with the Rule. It is made clear that

this will not confer any right on the petitioner to

insist that the above provisional timing shall be

considered as the final timing.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE hmh

WP(C).No.4910 OF 2021(K)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER NO C6/1690/2017 DATED 4.4.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REVISION OF TIMING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 16.11.2020

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 2518/2021 DATED 10.2.2021

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL