JOBY P. SAM Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 application for regular permit on the route Manpilavu-Pathanamthitta Via Vayyattupuzha Meenkuzhi Ettichuvadu, Chittar, Koothattukulam, Thannithode, Moozhy, Mundonnoozhy, Elimuttu, Novallar, Athumpukulam, Attackal, Vettoor and Pathanamthitta had been submitted by the petitioner as early as on 25.07.2016. It is submitted that without considering the said application, which has been preferred with a proposed set of timings as is evident from Ext.P1, the application preferred by the third respondent, much later, for permit on the route Karimanthod-Vakayarmukku was allowed. It is stated that the said route has a substantial common sector with the route in Ext.P1 application. The complaint of the petitioner is that the timing proposed by him in Ext.P1 is substantially allotted to the third respondent.

(3.) It is further contended that a timing conference was scheduled on 17.03.2018, but by interim order dated 16.03.2018, this Court interdicted the issuance of permit to the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the application preferred by the petitioner ought to have been considered and orders passed thereon before the third respondent was issued with permit on the basis of an application, which has been preferred much later.