IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 898 of 2009(F)
1. JOSEPH STANLEY, PANDYALACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL
... Respondent
2. P.S. THOMAS, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.DEEPAK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :11/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 898 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 11th August,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an existing operator operating on the
route Cherthala- Kaloor currently with stage carriage KL-
02/G 1962. Timing was alloted as per Ext.P1. Second
respondent , a regular permit holder operates on the route
Chellanam-Kaloor with stage carriage KL-04/N 1381.
According to the petitioner, there is an anomaly in the
timings allotted to the 2nd respondent. This is strongly
refuted by the 2nd respondent who submits that the
timings of the 2nd respondent are consistent with the
variation granted to the 2nd respondent on 24.5.2000 which
is endorsed in the permit. This writ petition has been filed
seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P3 which allegedly contains a prayer
for rectification of the mistake committed by the 1st
respondent in mentioning the passing time and arrival
time of the service operated by the 2nd respondent.
W.P ( C) No. 898 of 2009
2
2. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit
pointing out the absence of any anomaly in the timings
allotted to the 2nd respondent.
3. Having heard counsel on both sides, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to
consider Ext.P3, after notice to the 2nd respondent also and
pass an order thereon, within three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that in
the course of passing an order on Ext.P3, the 1st respondent
shall not revise the timings of the 2nd respondent.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 898 of 2009
3
W.P ( C) No. 898 of 2009
4