IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 19689 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ANTONY.M.D., MATTAPPALLIL HOUSE T.V. PURAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, RTA., REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT. REMADEVI V.P.,KAVUNGUMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-26 * ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R3: K.J.CHACKO, S/O.JAMES .K.C., AGED 51 YEARS, KANNANPARAMBIL, ULLALA, THALAYAZHAM, PO., VAIKOM. “IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 1/04/2009 IN I.A. 4442/2009. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN ADDL.R3 BY R3 BYSRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16219 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.19689/2008-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S BUS BY ORDER DTD. 18/7/2000. P2 COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S BUS BY ORDER DATED 6/11/2003. P3 COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S BUS KL-07/AJ-3579 FOR THE EXTENSION BY ORDER DTD.4-3-2008. P4 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF M.V.A.R.P.NO. 105/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 ORDER. P5 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P4 M.V.A.R.P.NO. 105/08. P6 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF M.V.A.R.P.NO. 106/2008 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 ORDER. P7 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.V.A.R.P. NO. 106/08. P8 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.R.P.NOS. 105 AND 106/2008 DTD. 4/6/2008. P9 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TIMING CONFERENCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S BUS KL-07/AJ-3579 FIXED ON 1/7/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008-L & 16219/2009-R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C).No.19689/2008 is filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.R.P Nos.105/2008 and 106/2008 whereby the Tribunal set aside the order settling the timings in respect of the petitioner in M.V.A.R.P.No.106/2008 and the matter was remanded to the second respondent-Secretary, R.T.A., Ernakulam to resettle the disputed timings in accordance with rules and after giving the affected parties an opportunity of being heard. Pending the writ petition, fresh orders have been passed by the authority which was under challenge before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petitions and W.P.(C).No.16219/2009 is filed against the common order Ext.P20 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.Nos.267/2008, 287/2008 and 310/2008. Therefore, the issue can be considered in the light of the challenge made by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16219/2009. It will have an impact on the other writ petition also. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16219/2009 applied for a regular stage carriage permit in the route Vaikom- W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008 & 16219/2009 -:2:- Kaloor-Amritha Hospital via.Poothotta, Thrippunithura, Vyttila, M.G.Road, Palarivattom, Edappally and Ponekkara in respect of stage carriage KL-7-AJ-3579. This is an inter- district route. It was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam subject to the counter signature of the R.T.A., Kottayam which was issued as per Ext.P1. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for an extension from Palarivattom to Kizhakkambalam and also for a conversion of the service into limited stop ordinary service which was granted as per Ext.P2 by the first respondent-R.T.A., Ernakulam. Accordingly, the route became Vaikom-Kaloor-Amritha Hospital with extension to Kizhakkambalam. There were some proceedings with respect to the counter signature by the other R.T.A.; we are not presently concerned with the same. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a variation of the same which was applied as per Ext.P8 by the petitioner and the same was granted as per Ext.P10. The variation resulted in the petitioner operating in the route Vaikom-Kaloor-Amritha Hospital via.Poothotta, Thrippunithura, Gandhi Square, Petta, Vyttila, M.G.Road, Palarivattom, Ponekkara with extension to Kizhakkambalam. Subsequently, the timing conference was convened and by Ext.P11, it was settled by the R.T.A., Ernakulam which was under challenge before the W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008 & 16219/2009 -:3:- State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per M.V.A.R.P.No.106/2008 by the petitioner. As already noticed, it was again remanded by common order Ext.P13 after hearing the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.19689/2008 who had filed M.V.A.R.P.No.105/2008. 3. After remand, by Ext.P15 the timings were settled. The petitioner is to leave Vaikom by 6.06 A.M in the morning and, aggrieved by the timing that is settled as per Ext.P15, Ext.P16 revision petition was filed which has resulted in Ext.P20 order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.16219/2009 submitted that the petitioner had sought for timing as 6.46 a.m and no objection was filed by anybody and, therefore, the method by which it was settled cannot be accepted at all and this point was not considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.19689/2008 submitted that the absence of a written objection will not confer any right on the petitioner to claim the set of timings as sought for and the objection can be raised in the conference which was actually raised also. The Tribunal disposed of the matter by Ext.P20 after taking the view that while settling the timings in respect of such an over saturated or well served route, it is humanly not possible to satisfy all the rival operators. W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008 & 16219/2009 -:4:- It was found that there is no violation of natural justice or non-observance of statutory requirements while settling the impugned timings in respect of the Stage Carriage Services of the rival parties. Accordingly, the revision petitions were dismissed. 5. The question is whether this Court will be justified in interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal in this writ petition, viz. W.P.(C).No.16219/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.16219/2009 strenuously contended that the main objection raised by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the revisional authority also. It is also pointed out that two years have lapsed after the settling of timings and, therefore, the circumstances have changed and the remand to the original authority will only render justice to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16219/2009 as otherwise the petitioner will not be able to operate the service at all. The request for remand is objected to by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.19689/2008 by pointing out that there is no infirmity in the proceedings passed by the Secretary, R.T.A as well as that of the Tribunal and no interference is called for. Evidently, the revisional authority, namely, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the proceedings issued in the matter. It was found that the route is an W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008 & 16219/2009 -:5:- over saturated or well served route, it may not be possible to satisfy all the rival operators. True that the petitioner had sought for a timing in the morning at 6.46 a.m. instead of 6.06 a.m. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.19689/2008 is to leave Vaikom at 6.52 a.m.. It was after noticing the said fact also that the authority had settled the timings as now granted to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the settling of timings was after verifying all the aspects including the claims of the rival parties as well as the other operators whose timings have to be considered. 6. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the proceedings Ext.P15 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, Ext.P20. Therefore, the writ petition, W.P.(C). No.16219/2009 fails and the same is dismissed. Since the remand order passed by the Tribunal which is under challenge in W.P.(C).No.19689/2008 (Ext.P8) has worked out itself, no orders are called for therein and the writ petition is hence dismissed. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.16219/2009 then submitted that the change of circumstances may be directed to be considered by the authorities concerned. If there are change of circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to file a separate application before the authority concerned and the W.P.(C). Nos.19689/2008 & 16219/2009 -:6:- dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner submitting an application accordingly. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms