K.C.Varkey vs Viswanatha Menon on 10 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1331 of 2008(C)



1. K.C.VARKEY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. VISWANATHA MENON
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS K.C.KUNNATHOOR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :10/12/2008

 O R D E R
                         V.GIRI, J
                       -------------------
         R.P.1331/2008 in W.P.(C).28377/2008
                      --------------------
      Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008

                          ORDER

The direction issued in the judgment

contemplated that the Secretary, RTA, passing an

order on the maintainability of Ext.P3 application, in

the light of Rule 212 read with Rule 145(7) of the

Motor Vehicles Rules. Obviously, the plea for revision

of timings, at the instance of the writ petitioner, can

be considered only after an order is passed on Ext.P3

and such order should also be made available to the

objectors, in the timing conference. He cannot

proceed to consider the plea for revision of timings, put

forward by the writ petitioner without passing an order

on the maintainability of Ext.P3. This aspect requires

to be clarified and it is so clarified.

In the circumstances, Review Petition is disposed

of clarifying that the Secretary, RTA shall first

consider Ext.P3 and pass an order on its

maintainability and on an application by the review

R.P.1331/2008
2

petitioner, such order should also be supplied to him. If

the request, contained in Ext.P3, is found to be

maintainable, then, the same shall be posted in a timing

conference to be considered along with the objections by

any other operators and then timings may be settled

after considering such objections by the rival operators.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs