K.T.Moosakutty vs The Secondary on 10 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7822 of 2010(C)


1. K.T.MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECONDARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

2. C.KOYA HAJI, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                        W.P(C) NO: 7822 OF 2010
                -----------------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 10th March, 2010.

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is conducting services on the route Manjeri-

Pokottumpadam via Wandoor since 1981. He has objected to the

timings that are proposed to be given to another operator, the

second respondent. The second respondent had applied for the

grant of a regular permit to conduct services on the route

Pandikkad-Pookottumpadam, a route that substantially overlaps the

route on which the petitioner is conducting services. According to

the petitioner the timings proposed by the second respondent are

only a few minutes ahead of the petitioner’s services. Therefore,

the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport Authority

and submitted Ext.P1 objections. Though there were objections

from other operators also, the Regional Transport Authority

granted the permit, subject to settlement of timings.

2. Apprehending that the timings of the second respondent

would be settled, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objection to the

timings proposed by the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner

is that the timings of the second respondent is about to be settled,

without considering the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner

WPC 7822/2010 2

therefore prays for appropriate directions to consider the

objections of the petitioner also while settling the timings of the

petitioner. The learned Govt. Pleader has no objection to such

directions to be issued.

3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of

directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the

petitioner evidenced herein by Exts.P1 and P3 also while settling the

timings of the second respondent, provided the said objections

have been received and are pending.

                                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN
                                                   Judge
jj

WPC 7822/2010    3

                      K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

—————————————————-

M.F.A.NO:

—————————————————–

JUDGMENT

Dated: