IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19281 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.B. BRIJITHA, AGED 31, D/O.BABU, PANANGATTU VEEDU, S.N.PURAM, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN- 680 665. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-30. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-30. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.19281 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the timings alloted to the service of the petitioner. The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting services on the route Kodungallur- North Parur - Kakkanad via Moothakunnam - Koonamavu - Varappuzha Bridge - Edappally - Palarivattom. According to the petitioner, the present timings of the petitioner creates clashes with the timings of other operators. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to operate her services conveniently. It is the further case of the petitioner that her timings were settled at a timing conference convened on 24.10.2008. The timing conference was convened by one N.N.Sukumaran, who was the then Secretary. However, the present time schedule of the petitioner is signed by one C.Radhakrishnan, who is his successor in office. According to the petitioner, the officer who conducted the timing conference should have issued the time schedule and therefore the impugned order Ext.P8 is vitiated. It is further pointed out by the Wpc 19281/2010 2 petitioner that no notice of the timing conference conducted on 24.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner. 2. In view of the above infirmities, the petitioner had challenged Ext.P8 in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). As per Ext.P10 order, the STAT has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner confirming Ext.P8 order. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P10. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of Ext.P8 shows that the same has been signed by Mr.C.Radhakrishnan but the timing conference is dated 21.10.2008. It is therefore clear that the impugned order has been signed by a person who was not posted as the secretary at the time, that the timing conference was actually conducted. To that extent, it is submitted that Ext.P8 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 4. Apart from the above, it is also pointed out that the timings of the petitioner causes clashes with the services of other operators which could be avoided on a proper timing conference being held. 5. The order of the STAT evidenced herein by Ext.P10 shows Wpc 19281/2010 3 that the very same contentions had been urged before the said authority by the petitioner. I also notice that the STAT had called for the files from the RTA, and had perused the files. After examining the files, the STAT has found that the petitioner had been served with due notice of the timing conference that was conducted as per Ext.P8. Particular reference has been made to page 47 of the files of the RTA, where a communication dated 21.10.2008 of the petitioner herself is seen, authorising one A.B.Baiju to represent her in the timing conference. Another communication of the petitioner has been referred to by the STAT, which is a request to the Secretary to issue a copy of the timings in view of the fact that her timings had already been settled. It has therefore been found that it was on the basis of the said communication that a permit was issued to the petitioner accompanied by a time schedule. However, the reference in the time schedule to the effect that a timing conference was conducted on 24.10.2008 has been held to be a clerical mistake, which has been corrected while issuing Ext.P8. Therefore, the STAT has found that the petitioner was only trying to take advantage of the clerical mistake. Wpc 19281/2010 4 6. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the officer who had conducted the timing conference had not issued the time schedule, it has been found that there is nothing on record to prove the said allegation of the petitioner. It has specifically been found that the impugned order as well as the time schedule were signed by the very same officer. Therefore, the STAT has found that the contentions of the petitioner are not substantiated. 7. On the question regarding the clash of the petitioner's timings with the timings of the other operators, the STAT has found that the route was over saturated and well served and therefore the prospect of the petitioner being alloted better timings was very bleak even if the order under challenge were to be upset. Since the order that was sought to be revised was not found to suffer from any illegality or impropriety, the revision has been dismissed. 8. Though the counsel for the petitioner has tried to urge before me that the finding of the STAT to the effect that the impugned order has been signed by one and the same officer is wrong, I do not find anything on record to substantiate the above contention. Anyway, the Wpc 19281/2010 5 matter has been gone into in detail by the STAT and no infirmity has been pointed out warranting an interference with the order of the STAT. It is also to be borne in mind that if the petitioner finds it difficult to conduct her services, in accordance with the present time schedule, she could always move for a revision of her timings provided the circumstances justify the same. As noticed by the STAT, it is not possible to work out a time schedule that would satisfy all operators at the same time. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. This writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move for a revision of her timings, if circumstances warrant. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk