M.O.Ganesh Kumar vs The Secretary on 31 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21575 of 2009(N)


1. M.O.GANESH KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :31/07/2009

 O R D E R
                               V.GIRI,J.
                        -------------------------
                    W.P ( C) No. 21575 of 2009
                        --------------------------
                  Dated this the 31st July,2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is operating a stage carriage

vehicle on the route Koottupuzha-Parassinikadavu, has sought

for revision of his own timings, which, according to him, was

settled in the year 2004. The reasons stated are apparently,

the introduction of new services and change of circumstances.

2. The application for revision of timings of one’s own

timings will have to be settled in terms of Rule 145(7) of the

Motor Vehicles Rules. If there are special circumstances, as

contemplated by Rule 145(7) of the Rules, the existence of

such special circumstances will have to be found by the

authority. Thus, the authority will have to consider the

request and if he is of the opinion that there are sufficient

reasons and he feels that the operator’s request merits

consideration under Rule 145(7) of the Rules, then orders

shall be passed in this regard and only thereafter the request

for revision of timings should be boarded at a timing

conference.

W.P ( C) No. 21575 of 2009
2

3. Accordingly, the respondent shall first pass an

order on Ext.P1, keeping in mind Rule 145(7) of the Rules

and if the respondent is of the opinion that there are special

circumstances which necessitates consideration of

petitioner’s request for revision of his own timings, an

order shall be passed and such order shall be

communicated to the petitioner and any other operator,

who is in need of a copy. Thereafter, mentioning the

number of the order, the request for revision of timings

made by the petitioner shall be included in a timing

conference and an appropriate decision taken. The

petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard, if

the respondent is not inclined to accept the request of the

petitioner as regards the maintainability of Ext.P1. The

entire process shall be completed within two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No. 21575 of 2009
3

W.P ( C) No. 21575 of 2009
4