IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12829 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.RAJAKUMARAN, S/O. PARANGODAN, THEKKEKATTIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. K.HAMSA, S/O. ALIPPU, KUNNATH HOUSE, PARAL.P.O., THOOTHA, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.12829 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, the registered owner of Stage Carriage bearing registration No. KL-10/M 523 conducting service on the route Perinthalmanna - Kolappada via Cherplacherry, Ottapalam, has submitted Ext.P4 request to the first respondent for the variation of the timings issued to the second respondent. The petitioner is conducting his service in accordance with the timings settled as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, a major portion of the route mainly from Perinthalmanna to Cherplacherry was being operated by the petitioner, even prior to the issue of Ext.P1 timings and variation to the petitioner. The variation issued to the petitioner was as per Ext.P2. The petitioner further contends that in Ext.P3, the RTA has specifically stated while issuing the variation that, the existing set of timings would not be varied and that settlement of timings was necessary only for the varied portion of the route. Contrary to the above, the entire time slots were revised, while issuing Ext.P2. As per Ext.P2, the second respondent Wpc 12829/2010 2 has been granted a timing just two minutes ahead of the petitioner's service. According to the petitioner, the timings in Ext.P2 are prejudicially affecting the smooth operation of the petitioner's service. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking a revision of the timings alloted to the second respondent. The petitioner complains that his request in Ext.P4 has not been considered by the authorities so far. 2. The petitioner has admittedly set out his grievances in Ext.P2, which he has submitted to the first respondent. Since the grievances of the petitioner are engaging the attention of the first respondent, I do not think it necessary to consider the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It is sufficient that Ext.P4 is directed to be considered by the first respondent without further delay. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible Wpc 12829/2010 3 and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk