AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant based on the leave granted by this Court in I.A. No. 675 of 2010, as aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21546 of 2010, to which he was not a party.
The above writ petition was filed by the second respondent herein seeking a direction to consider the objection preferred by the writ petitioner (Ext.P2) in respect of settlement of timings. The case projected by the appellant herein is that the second respondent was granted with a regular permit to operate stage carriage in the particular route subject to settlement of timings which, however, was finalized as per Ext.P1 subsequently. After finalization of the timings, the second respondent preferred some objections before the first respondent herein and approached this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider the said objection. The ground raised in the memorandum of appeal is that Ext.P1 has become final and if the second respondent is aggrieved in any manner, the remedy of the second respondent is to file a revision petition u/s 90 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and not to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein also turned up through the learned Counsel and sought for time to file a counter affidavit. However, it was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that a communication had already been issued by the first respondent as referred to in the last paragraph of the judgment (No. C4/9511/2010/P dated 3.7.2010) asking the writ petitioner to appear so as to consider the objections in the matter of completion of the enquiry. It was in the said circumstances that the matter was directed to be considered and finalized by the first respondent, however, making it clear that the aggrieved party (present appellant) who entered appearance before the learned Single Judge was also to be heard before the proceedings are finalized in this regard as specifically taken note of in paragraph 3 and the concluding paragraph of the impugned verdict.
Going by the facts and figures, it is very much evident that the rights and interests of the appellant herein have also been taken care of by the learned Single Judge. There is absolutely no discussion with regard to the merits of the case and no decision has been rendered as to whether the proceedings of the 1st respondent are maintainable or not. Whether the 2nd respondent is relegated to avail the remedy u/s 90 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, is very much open to be highlighted by the appellant including all other relevant aspects, legal as well as factual, when the proceedings are finalized by the 1st respondent as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge.
No interference is warranted. Writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.