SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Bright Saged – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38928 OF 2026



Important Points

Direction issued to the Regional Transport Authority to consider a pending application for revision of vehicle timings after hearing the applicant and other affected operators in accordance with the law.

Subject

Administrative Law - Transport Regulation

Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus - Direction to consider representation - Where a request for revision of timings for a stage carriage is pending before the Regional Transport Authority, the court may direct the authority to consider the application in accordance with law and after hearing affected parties within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 4)

Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for revision of timing for his stage carriage.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • administrative law
    • writ jurisdiction
      • mandamus (Para 1, 4)
    • public utility regulation
      • stage carriage timing revision (Para 1, 2, 4)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O.D.Sivadas
For the Respondents: Jishamol Cleetus

Table of Contents

1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to consider an application for the revision of bus service timings. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. The petitioner contends that a submitted application for the revision of vehicle operation timings remains pending and has not been considered by the respondent. (Para 2 , 3 )

3. The court noted that the application for timing revision was pending and that the respondent has a duty to decide the request in accordance with law after due hearing. (Para 4 )

4. Statutory authorities are duty-bound to consider and dispose of pending applications for service timing revisions within a reasonable timeframe after providing an opportunity for hearing. (Para 4 )

5. The respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application for timing revision within two months after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties. (Para 4 )

6. Does a transport authority have a legal obligation to consider an application for revision of bus timings?

Yes. Upon the submission of an application for revision of timings, the authority is under a duty to consider the request in accordance with law, provided that affected parties are given a fair hearing before a decision is reached. (Para 4 )

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

----------------------------------

W.P(C) No.38928 2026

-----------------------------------

Dated this the 12th day of November, 2026

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for revision of timings in respect of petitioner’s stage carriage No.KL 02/K 7110 on the route Chakkuvally – Vellanathuruthu and allot revised timing to the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner and other operators.”

2. The petitioner’s case is that even though he had submitted Ext.P2 request on 21.07.2026 before the respondent to revise the timings of the above vehicle, the same has not been considered. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri.O.D.Sivdas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

4. Having considered the pleadings and materials and taking note of the submission of the petitioner that Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the respondent, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 request in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also produce the copy of Ext.P2 along with the certified copy of this judgment, before the respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top