IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8275 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- L.P.BAVESH, KOTTARAPAT HOUSE, PUNNA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR - 680 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8275 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Punna – Chavakkad – Venmanad – Kunnamkulam – Kapprikad – Guruvayoor. The distance from Chavakkad to Kunnamkulam, a sector of the said route, is 14 kms. The running time allotted to the petitioner's stage carriage to cover that portion of the route is 30 minutes. In other words, the petitioner's stage carriage will have to cover 1 km. in every two minutes. The petitioner has seeking enhancement of the running time on the sector Chavakkad to Kunnamkulam from 30 minutes to 35 minutes, submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 27.6.2006 before the respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though thereafter an enquiry was conducted, a report filed and Ext.P3 notification was published inviting objections to the enhancement of the running time, till date, final orders have not been passed on Ext.P1 petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P1 petition within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. What the petitioner seeks in Ext.P1 is an enhancement of the running time on the sector Chavakkad to Kunnamkulam having W.P.(C) No.8275 of 2011 2 a length of 14 kms from the existing 30 minutes to 35 minutes. That will certainly involve a clash with the timings of other operators operating on the said route. However, the fact remains that the said application was enquired into and objections from other operators were called for as can be seen from Ext.P3 which itself was issued on 11.11.2008. Ext.P1 application is dated 27.6.2006. The question whether having regard to public interest the request in Ext.P1 should be granted or not is a matter primarily for the respondent to decide. In such circumstances, as an enquiry has already been conducted on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P1 and more than 4 years have after it was filed, I am of the opinion that the respondent should consider Ext.P1 and take a decision in the matter expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass final orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within three months from today, after affording the petitioner and other stage carriage operators who would be affected by the outcome of Ext.P1 application an opportunity of being heard. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.