IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20417 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.M.PERUMAL, TC/31/44, KOLUTHURAPALLY HOUSE, MANGATTU LANE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA. 2. V.S.RAJASEKHARAN, EKARANAPARAMBATH, THIRUTHIYAD, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSH R2 BY ADV. MR.M.JITHESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 20417 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-8AN 1575 operating on the route Kozhikode-Thrissur-. Second respondent is an operator, operating a service on the route Mahepalam-Thrissur, as 'Limited Stop Fast Passenger' service. Considerable portion of the route operated by the two vehicles are the same. Time schedule relating to the 2nd respondent's service was fixed as per Ext.P2 and the same shows that running time between Kozhikode-Thrissur is 3 hours and 10 minutes. But on the ground that the 2nd respondent has been operating the service in 3 hours and 15 minutes, petitioner raised a complaint as regards the operation of the 2nd respondent. Earlier, this Court had as per Ext.P2 judgment directed the Secretary, RTA to consider the W.P ( C) No. 20417 of 2009 2 petitioner's contentions and see that the petitioner and 2nd respondent operate as per the time fixed in relation to their stage carriages. 2. The matter was considered by the Secretary, RTA. It seems that notice addressed to the 2nd respondent was returned with the statement that he is residing in Tamil Nadu. There is a controversy on this aspect. But Ext.P4 will show that running time of 3 hours and 15 minuts has been allotted to the 2nd respondent. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri.Jikesh Menon. 4. Running time of the 2nd respondent is admittedly 3 hours and 10 minutes. That should have been directed to be adhered to. I do not find any justification in Ext.P4 alloting the time of 3 hours and 15 minutes. W.P ( C) No. 20417 of 2009 3 5. Ext.P4 is therefore set aside and the Secretary, RTA is directed to pass fresh orders, as directed by this Court. To enable him to do so, the parties shall appear before the RTA on 10.8.2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 20417 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 20417 of 2009 5