Siju P.A vs The Secretary
2024 Latest Caselaw 10209 Ker

Kerala High Court

Siju P.A vs The Secretary on 5 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SIJU P.A
         AGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SATHAR,
         MANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORANGATTUPARAMBU,
         MALEKKAPPADY, EDATHALA, ALUVA - 683561.

         BY ADVS.
         RILGIN V.GEORGE
         NAZRIN BANU


RESPONDENT:

         THE SECRETARY
         REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
         MUVATTUPUZHA, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
         MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669.

         BY ADV.SRI.SREEJITH V.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.14218 of 2024

                              :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024

The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator. He holds a

Stage Carriage Permit to conduct Stage Carriage service on

the route Kolenchery - Thripunithura issued to his Stage

Carriage bearing registration No.KL-07-BB-8370. The

service is being operated on the strength of time schedule

approved by the respondent in the year 2020, more than

four years ago. The last four years has witnessed a manifold

increase in the volume of traffic on the route in question. So

much so that it has become well nigh impossible to operate

the Stage Carriage adhering to the approved timings.

2. It was in the above circumstances that the

petitioner submitted a request before the respondent for

revision of time schedule issued to his service so as to make

it more in tune with the changed circumstances. The

respondent has acknowledged receipt of Ext.P1. Yet he

insists that the same can be considered only if otherwise

ordered by this Court.

3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for

revision of timing. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking direction to the respondent to consider the

application for revision of timings.

4. Heard.

5. It is evident that Ext.P1 is an application for

change of timing which has statutory support. Therefore, it is

necessary that the competent authority considers Ext.P1 in

accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

respondent-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to

consider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner and

take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of three

months in accordance with law and after giving opportunity

of hearing to the affected parties.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14218/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.01.2024 FILED UNDER RULE 212 OF THE K.M.V. RULES, 1989