Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
K.M. Antony – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15245 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Transport Regulation
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O.D. Sivadas
For the Respondents: P.S. Appu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for considering objections when settling timings for transport permits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. duty of the transport authority to evaluate stakeholder objections before finalizing carriage schedules. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are the existing stage carriage operators. As per Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent has been granted permit on the route Chertala – Thavankadavu – Thykkattussery – Chellanam as ordinary service on 22.10.2025, on certain conditions. Exts. P3 to P6 are the objections filed by the petitioners against the grant of permit. The petitioners apprehend that the timings in respect of the vehicle of the 3rd respondent would be settled pursuant to Ext.P1 without considering their objections. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts. P3 to P6 before settling the timings of the 3rd respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to the
3rd respondent is dispensed with.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners and Exts.P3 to P6 objections will be considered before settling the timings of the 3rd respondent.
In the light of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P3 to P6 objections before settling the timings in respect of the vehicle of the
3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1.
