The petitioner has two stage carriage services, which are operating on separate routes, being Cherthala - Kottayam and Kottayam - Vaikom, which is evidenced by Exhibits P1 and P1(a). The grievance of the petitioner is that, the timings of the service of the 2nd respondent, operating in the route Kottayam - Cherthala on temporary permit, has been settled without hearing the objections of the petitioner. In such circumstance, the petitioner claimed in the writ petition that the timings of the 2nd respondent, who is operating on a temporary permit, may be settled after hearing the objections of the petitioner. Exhibit P3 is the timings on which the 2nd respondent has been given a tentative set of timings, for operating the temporary service. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that, Exhibit P1 granted to the petitioner has been subsequently revised on 15.12.2014 and the petitioner does not have any grievance about the timings in the said route clashing WP(C).No.33546 of 2014 - 2 -
with that of the service of the 2nd respondent. However, the learned counsel submits that the timings in Exhibit P1(a) still clash with Exhibit P3 and, hence, the timings may be settled in accordance with law.
3. In the above circumstance, the 1st respondent shall settle the timings of the service of the 2nd respondent operating on temporary permit, especially in the context of Exhibit P3 being only tentative set of timings. To give the 1st respondent a breathing time, this Court directs that the same shall be done within a period of one month from today.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge ( true copy )