High Court Kerala High Court

Jithendran vs The Secretary on 12 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jithendran vs The Secretary on 12 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 966 of 2010(U)


1. JITHENDRAN, S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :12/01/2010

 O R D E R
                            P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                            ---------------------------
                         W.P.(C) No. 966 OF 2010
                            --------------------------
                Dated this the 12thday of January, 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the

route Koyilandy-Thamarassery. Aggrieved by the timings set out in

Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 petition dated

30.11.2009 before the respondent. The grievance voiced by the

petitioner is that, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In

this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to

consider Ext.P2 petition and pass orders thereon within a time limit

to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri. K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned senior Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that as Ext.P2

representation was filed only on 30.11.2009, it cannot be said that

there has been undue delay in passing orders on the said petition.

He further submits that notwithstanding that fact, the petitioner has

rushed to this Court immediately after filing a petition for revision of

timings. He also submits that the respondent will consider Ext.P2

and take a decision thereon at the earliest.

W.P.(C) No. 966/2010
2

3. Ext.P2 discloses that the petitioner has sought revision of

the timings fixed as per Ext.P1 in view of the frequent movement of

trains from Kozhikode towards Mangalore as a result of which traffic

is held up at Bappangode railway gate through which the petitioner’s

bus passes. In view of the reason put forward by the petitioner in

Ext.P2 representation to reconsider Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that

the respondent should consider Ext.P2 and pass orders thereon

expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a

direction to the respondent to consider the request made by the

petitioner in Ext.P2 and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in

any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner

produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. The

respondent shall before passing orders on Ext.P2 afford the

petitioner and other operators, who will be effected by the outcome of

Ext.P2, a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps