IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7822 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.T. MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.UNNI HYDU, KARULIKATTIL THANDUPARACKAL HOUSE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN, MR.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. C. KOYA HAJI, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, ARIPRAMUNDA, P.O.PALAKKALVETTA, VIA TUVVUR, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. 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: