IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25543 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, DEVINILAYAM, VALLANCHY, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. K.M.HANEEFA, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, NEAR POST OFFICE, COYALMANNAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 702. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25543/2011 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING DATED 5/12/2001. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 1/1/2010. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF AGENDA NOTES NO.G1/61621/2011/P. EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28/7/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 25543 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Palamukku-Palakkad on the strength of a regular permit. The time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled on 5.12.2001. The second respondent is a new entrant in the field. He applied for a regular stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Peringottukurissi-Pallassenakavu. The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad that met on 30.6.2011 resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings. A timing conference was also scheduled to be held thereafter as can be seen from Ext.P3. The case set out by the petitioner is that though the second respondent does not possess a vehicle which can be put on the road, a timing conference is scheduled to be held and that on coming to know of it, she has submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 28.7.2011 objecting to the settlement of timings. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to refrain from issuing the permit without considering Ext.P4 objections or without settling the timings. 2. The case set out by the petitioner in paragraphs 2 and W.P.(C) No.25543 of 2011 2 3 of the writ petition is as follows:- 2) The 2nd respondent applied for a regular stage carriage permit to operate on the route Peringottukurissi-Pallassenakavu Via Coyalmannam, Kunissery, Ozhuvupara etc and the proposed timing which has been published in the agenda for that service, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3. It is submitted that the permit on the above route is granted to the 2nd respondent subject to settlement of timing and it seems that the 1st and 2nd respondent colluding together are attempting to get issued with the proposed timing for the granted permit, even though the 2nd respondent even do not have a ready vehicle presently. If the proposed timing is allotted to the 2nd respondent that will be directly in clash with the petitioner's service and that also will endanger the safety of the public due to the competition in running the service with the identical timings. Therefore, the petitioner filed a request to the 1st respondent that the granted permit to the 2nd respondent, may not be issued, without hearing the petitioner and without settlement of timing etc. and the true copy of that request is produced herein and marked as Exhibit P4. 3) It is understood that the 1st and 2nd respondent are attempting to get issued the granted permit without settlement of timing and with the proposed timing, on extraneous consideration and if, it happens it will be affecting the petitioner's service badly and also that the public safety will be at endanger.” The petitioner has not either in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition or in Ext.P4 objection disclosed the date on which the timing conference is scheduled to be held. It is not known whether the timing conference has already been held before Ext.P4 objection W.P.(C) No.25543 of 2011 3 was filed. The manner in which Ext.P4 was submitted to the first respondent is also not stated. It is not known whether it was sent by registered post or was submitted in person. From the pleadings and the materials on record, this Court is not in a position to decide whether Ext.P4 objection was submitted before the timing conference was held. I am therefore of the opinion that on such vague pleadings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25543 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 12th October, 2011 --------------------------------------