IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 383 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOY SEBASTIAN, EZHACHERRY P.O., RAMAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.383 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 19th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is operating a stage carriage bus on the route Kuzhimavu – Ernakulam on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. The timings in respect of the said service were settled as per Ext.P2 order dated 31.3.2006. As per the timings settled by Ext.P2, the petitioner's stage carriage bus leaves Kuzhimavu at 5.45 a.m. and reaches Ernakulam at 10.39 a.m. The return journey commences at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner states that only very few stage carriages operate on the route Kuzhimavu – Ernakulam. He submits that in view of the short turn around time for the return trip and the difficulty faced by commuters who have to return to Kuzhimavu on the same day, he filed Ext.P3 petition before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam seeking revision of the timings. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 petition was submitted way back in June, 2007, till date orders have not been passed thereon. 2. Sri. K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that till date orders have not been passed on Ext.P3 for the reason that no grounds have been made out warranting revision of W.P(C)No.383/2010 2 timings. In my opinion, if the request made by the petitioner does not merit acceptance, the respondent ought to have rejected it instead of keeping it pending. Under sub-rule (7) of rule 145 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the interest of the public is also a relevant consideration in deciding whether to grant or refuse change of timings. The ground stated by the petitioner for revision of timings is that his crew has a short turn around time and that unless the departure time from Ernakulam is changed, the travelling public will be put to considerable inconvenience. This contention, in my opinion, is a relevant matter which the respondent should take into account while considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3. The petitioner's bus leaves Kuzhimavu at 5.45 a.m.. It reaches Ernakulam at 10.39 a.m. after nearly five hours. The stipulation that the return trip should leave Ernakulam at 11.00 a.m. when the bus plies through hilly areas, is in my opinion, not one in public interest. Safety of the passengers is also a relevant factor which the Transport Authority has to take note of besides the frequency in the number of trips and buses plying on the route Kuzhimavu – Ernakulam. The safety of passengers depends on the expertise of drivers and also their physical and mental condition. A driver who is driving a heavy vehicle continuously from Kuzhimavu to Ernakulam along a hilly area, in my opinion, needs rest W.P(C)No.383/2010 3 for a reasonable time, before he is asked to drive the vehicle back to Kuzhimavu. I am therefore of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 merits serious consideration at the hands of the Transport Authority. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 petition having regard to the safety of passengers also and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent. The respondent shall before passing orders on Ext.P3, afford the petitioner and other operators who would be affected by the change of timings, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The respondent shall after orders are passed communicate copies thereof to all the parties. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS