1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to consider an application for the revision of bus service timings. (Para 1 , 2 )
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
Subject
Administrative Law - Transport Regulation
Headnote
Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for revision of timing for his stage carriage.
Legal Category Hierarchy
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O.D.Sivadas
For the Respondents: Jishamol Cleetus
Table of Contents
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.