COMMON JUDGMENT

[ WP(C).2922/2021, WP(C).2883/2021 ]

Dated this the 26th day of March 2021 Grievance of the petitioner, who is common in both the cases, is that, the second respondent in both the cases, who are existing operators conducting two services on the road Parappanangadi – Kozhikode with two stage carriages, which is an inter district route, are not operating in terms of the time schedule. Hence,there is acute clash of timings between the services operated by the petitioner as well as the second respondent in both the writ petitions. It is stated that the second respondent is operating via bypass illegally. An objection was filed before the RTA, Malappuram, a copy of which is produced in both the writ petition as Ext.P3. Grievance of the petitioner is that, Ext.P3 is not considered by the first respondent in spite of considerable delay.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent permit holder.

3. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent denied the allegation of the petitioner that he is plying the vehicle violating the terms and conditions of the permit, petitioner has