Mohammed Kabeer vs Secretary, Regional Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7451 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
        FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 20580 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           MOHAMMED KABEER
           AGED 48 YEARS
           S/O. MOIDEEN, MANHAKKANDAN HOUSE,
           PAAYIPPULLU P. O.,
           THUVVUR, MALAPPURAM.

           BY ADV SRI. I.DINESH MENON


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE SECRETARY,
           REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
           REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
           CIVIL STATION P. O.,
           MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
    2      MOHAMMED KOYA
           S/O. MOHAMMED, KARAPOOLA HOUSE,
           NARUKARA P. O,
           MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 121.

           SRI. JIMMY GEORGE - GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.20580 OF 2022

                                 2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an existing stage carriage

operator operating on the route Areekkode-Nilambur

touching Thaliyamkundu. He is operating with the

time schedule as granted in Ext.P2 order. The 2 nd

respondent preferred a request for revision of

timings. The petitioner submitted his objection to

the timing proposed by the 2nd respondent. However,

the 2nd respondent's request was granted by Ext.P4.

Ext.P5 objection of the petitioner was retained for

consideration at the time of conducting timing

conference. According to the petitioner, since then

no timing conference has been convened and his

objection is not so far considered. Accordingly, he

has approached this Court for a direction to the 1 st WP(C).No.20580 OF 2022

respondent to convene a timing conference in respect

of the 2nd respondent's service bearing Registration

No.KL-60-3099 after considering Ext.P5 objection of

the petitioner, within a time frame.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader for the 1 st

respondent. In the nature of the direction I propose

to issue notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed

with.

3. There will be a direction to the 1 st

respondent to consider Ext.P5 objection of the

petitioner in the light of Ext.P4, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the

petitioner and the 2nd respondent while considering

Ext.P5 objection. It is made clear that, I have not

expressed any opinion on the merits of Ext.P5

objection pending before the 1st respondent. WP(C).No.20580 OF 2022

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.20580 OF 2022

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 03.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 ASSURING OF TIMING CONFERENCE AND TENTATIVELY REVISING THE TIMINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AFTER THE NOTIFICATION ON 16.03.2021 DATED 29.04.2022.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.