IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 249 of 2011(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- RATHEESH.M.C., MUTHALAMCHIRA HOUSE, SOUTH KONDAZHY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 020. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.249/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 5.8.2005 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.6.2010 EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.6.2008 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.22447/2010 DATED 10.8.2010 EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.12.2010 EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.30101/2009 AND IN CCC NO.51/2009 EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. IN WP(C)NO.35012/2010 DATED 29.11.2010 / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.249 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thiruvilwamala – Thanikudam on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. The timing in respect of the said service was settled as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 5.8.2005. While settling the time schedule the running time was fixed as 2.5 minutes per kilometer. Complaining that the running time for other stage carriages operating on the same route or sectors thereof is only 2 minutes and therefore his time schedule should also be revised, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 petition dated 23.12.2010 before the respondent for revision of the time schedule. In that application the petitioner has also stated that on account of the longer running time his employees are forced to work continuously for more than eight hours thereby resulting in violation of section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act. 2. When that application was not considered he filed W.P(C) W.P(C) NO.249/2011 -:2:- No.22447 of 2010. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 10.8.2010 this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's request and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after notice to and hearing all interested parties. The petitioner submits that though a copy of the said judgment was furnished to the respondent and the time limit fixed therein has also expired no orders have been passed though a timing conference was convened and held on 22.12.2010. The petitioner submits that he had in the meanwhile submitted Ext.P5 application dated 23.12.2010 requesting the respondent to settle the timings having due regard to section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 2(f) and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act. This writ petition is filed contending that the respondent has not till date passed orders on Ext.P5, as a result of which employees of the petitioner's stage carriage are forced to work for more than eight hours per day. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pass orders on Ext.P5 application by limiting the hours of work to 8 hours in terms of section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and W.P(C) NO.249/2011 -:3:- sections 2(f) and 13 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. 3. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking revision of the time schedule after reducing the running time to 2 minutes per kilometer. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 10.8.2010 this Court directed the respondent to consider the application for reducing the timings. The petitioner himself states that a timing conference was held on 22.12.2010. He has however stated that till date orders have not been issued pursuant to the timing conference convened on 22.12.2010. The petitioner relies on Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court to contend that when an application pointing out violation of section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act is filed the respondent has a duty to consider the same and pass orders thereon. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to have his time schedule revised by reducing the running time is already pending before the respondent. In such circumstances if the respondent has not till date issued orders on the petitioner's application for revision of the time schedule pursuant to the W.P(C) NO.249/2011 -:4:- directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, I am of the opinion that the respondent should consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 application also while taking a decision in the matter. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the request in Ext.P5 as well while passing orders pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment on the application for revision of time schedule if till date orders have not been passed in the application for revision of the time schedule. If orders have already been passed pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the respondent shall inform the petitioner of the same. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.249 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd March, 2011