AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the existing stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Vandiperiyar-Kattappana touching Valacode on the basis of Ext.P1 permit issued in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KL 40/L 9199. The 2nd respondent is operating on the route Rajakkad-Vandiperiyar with stage carriage No.KL 05/AK 1238. Seeking revision of own timings, the 2nd respondent filed an application on 13.04.2026 before the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed W.P(C) No.17456/2026 and this Court, by Ext.P2 judgment, directed the 1st respondent to consider her application dated 13.04.2026 for revision of timings within a period of two months after hearing her and other stakeholders. The petitioner states that there is no warranting circumstances for revision of timings of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 objection to the application of the 2nd respondent. Exts.P4 to P7 are the representations preferred by the Panchayats and the travelling public against the revision of timings of the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
“i)Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 notice of timing conference issued by the 1st respondent and set aside the Ext.P3 notice by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider the Ext.P8 objection of the petitioner as well as Ext.P4, Ext.P5, Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 objections submitted by the Grama Panchyath and also the travelling public against the change of timing of the 2 respondent, while convening conference with respect to the stage carriage No. KL 05/AK 1238 of the 2 respondent by taking note of the dictum in Joji Edattil Vs. Secretary, RTA, Idukki (2004(1) KLT 493) and Krishnankutty Vs. John (1992(2) KLT 883) and pass an order in accordance with law.”
When the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless there is an order by this Court, the 1st respondent will not consider the objection against the revision of timings.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 objection submitted by the petitioner against the application of the 2nd respondent for revision of timings, in the RTA meeting scheduled to be held on 24.09.2026 and also taking note of Exts.P4 to P7 representations.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32499 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED 19.04.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 17456 OF 2026 DATED 22.05.2026 RENDERED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 THE NOTICE OF TIMING CONFERENCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24/09/2026
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.09.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE AYYAPPANCOVIL GRAMA PANCHYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.09.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.09.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE KUMALY GRAMA PANCHYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.09.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE ALL SAINT CSI CHURCH SINGED BY THE TRAVELING PUBLIC TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18.09.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT