IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 482 of 2011(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, KALARICKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. SRI.BABY ANTOS, PARAYIL HOUSE, EDAMARUKU P.O., PIN-686652. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 482 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Erattupetta-Thodupuzha with a settled set of timings, evidenced by Ext.P1. The second respondent is another stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-35/2255 on the route Thulappally-Mankulam. The second respondent has submitted an application, evidenced by Ext.P3, for revision of timings to the first respondent. It is stated that the said application will be considered by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki in the timing conference scheduled to be held on 11.1.2011. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 notice in so far as it relates to the second respondent's application. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as there is no change in circumstances, the fist respondent ought not have entertained the second respondent's application for revision of timings. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnankutty v. John (1992 (2) KLT 883) in support of the said WPC No.482/2011 2 contention. The learned counsel contends that the statutory authority can act in accordance with rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules only if any ground or reason exists for revision of the timings and any ground or reason can exist only if there is an alteration in the circumstances or a new state of affairs which did not exist when the earlier order settling the timings was passed. 2. In my opinion, it is primarily for the first respondent to decide whether the request made by the second respondent should be granted or not after considering the objections raised before him. The petitioner who is aware of the timing conference which is scheduled to be held on 11.1.2011 can certainly put forward all his objections before the first respondent. He can in that objection also contend for the position that no ground or reason exists to alter the settled timings. The petitioner can be said to be aggrieved only if the revision of timings sought by the second respondent would affect him. He can be said to be aggrieved only if there is a clash of timings of the stage carriage operated by him and the stage carriage operated by the second respondent. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner should put forward all his objections before the first respondent. Further, even if the first respondent were to grant the WPC No.482/2011 3 request in Ext.P3 and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, his remedy is to challenge that order by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all his objections to Ext.P3 before the first respondent by filing a written objection. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps