High Court Kerala High Court

Sunderasan Pillai vs The Secretary on 8 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sunderasan Pillai vs The Secretary on 8 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1529 of 2010()


1. SUNDERASAN PILLAI,GIRISH NIVAS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,QUILON AUTOMOBILE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :08/09/2010

 O R D E R
   J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.A.No. 1529 OF 2010
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

Ramachandra Menon, J.

The appellant was not a party to the writ petition, who is

stated as aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single

Judge. As per order dated 06.09.2010 in I.A. No.643 of 2010,

leave was granted for filing this Appeal.

2. Grievance of the appellant is that, by virtue of the

impugned verdict the writ petitioner has been enabled to have

his grievance redressed with regard to the re-settlement of

timings, which in fact has quite adversely affected the

appellant. Pursuant to the judgment passed, the matter has

been considered by the RTA, whereby the Secretary RTA has

been directed to reset the timings as specified; which in fact is

without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A

copy of the proceedings of the RTA has been made available to

this Court in the above regard.

3. Now, going by the facts and figures this Court finds

WA No. 1529 of 2010
-:2:-

that the appellant is very much having a remedy by seeking to

review the verdict passed by the very same learned Single Judge,

because of the denial of the opportunity of hearing. The learned

counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would like to

prefer a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge.

In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Appeal is

closed, reserving the rights and liberties of the appellant as

above. All the contentions raised by the appellant in the Writ

Appeal are left open.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.

ttb

WA No. 1529 of 2010
-:3:-