Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.V.MAMMUKUTTY, KULANGARA VEETTIL HOUSE versus THE SECRETARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.V.MAMMUKUTTY, KULANGARA VEETTIL HOUSE v. THE SECRETARY - WP(C) No. 18429 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 11124 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18429 of 2007(R)

1. K.V.MAMMUKUTTY, KULANGARA VEETTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent

2. T.SAJI, S/O.BHARATHAN, 24/1567C,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 18429 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks revision of his timings on the ground that on account of a new permit and timings issued to the 2nd respondent there is change of circumstances warranting such revision. The petitioner submits that his timings were settled as early as on 16.2.98.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government pleader. After hearing both sides, I am not satisfied that I can grant the prayer of the petitioner since the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner, if the timings in Ext.P2 comes in clash with the petitioner's timings, is to file a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Of course, the petitioner would submit that he does not want to challenge Ext.P2 but only wants revision of his timings because of Ext.P2, which certainly is change of circumstance as contemplated under law. I do not agree with the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that the timings in Ext.P2 comes into clash with Ext.P1 timings of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner should have first objected to Ext.P1 timings and if the objections are not accepted, he W.P.(c)No.18429/07 2 should have filed a revision. When a new operator comes into scene, normally the R.T.A. cannot settle the timings against the settled timings of the petitioner. Therefore, I am certainly of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal against Ext.P2 and not to seek revision of his timings on the ground of change of circumstance on account of Ext.P2. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 timings issued to the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.18429/07 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.