JOHN MATHEW VARIPALAKKAL HOUSE Vs. P T ANIYANKUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the second respondent in the W.P.(C)No.19448 of 2018. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction for disposal of the Ext.P1 representation of the permit holder of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/D-959 operating on the route Kottayam-Vadasserykara. According to the applicant, his vehicle timing clashed with the timing of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/H-2601 and therefore, a request was made for convening a timing conference, where these aspects could be considered by the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam.

(2.) The Ext.P1 representation was filed on 28.5.2018 and when the same was not considered expeditiously, the applicant moved the High Court. The learned single Judge at the stage of admission itself, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following order:

(3.) Assailing the legality of the impugned direction, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decision in M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another,1995 KHC 214, submits that since the Ext.P1 application was not a statutory application, the learned single Judge should not have issued direction for consideration of the representation. He further contends that when such direction for consideration is issued by the High Court, the Authorities would inevitably treat it as a direction in favour of the writ petitioner and accordingly, alter the stage carriage timing, which will impact the appellant who is operating in the route for the last many decades.