AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S.Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 objection submitted by the petitioner opposing the application submitted by the second respondent, seeking revision of timings of her stage carriage vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-56-M-5558.
The petitioner’s case is that, the second respondent has submitted an application seeking revision of timings of her above vehicle which starts from Neerkkadavu. The second respondent has requested to advance the timing of the above vehicle from 7.40 a.m.by atleast one hour. If the said application is allowed, it will adversely affect the petitioner and similarly situated persons. Hence, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 objection to the second respondent’s application.The petitioner is apprehensive that her objection may not be considered by the first respondent while considering the request of the second respondent. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sreejith.V.S., learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P2 objection on the application submitted by the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the said objection of the petitioner also.
Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:
(i) The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the request submitted by the second respondent for revision of timings, after adverting to the objection submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner and the second respondent an opportunity of being heard.