IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18313 of 2007(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- C.MANOJ KUMAR, PUTHILYAVEEDU, VADAVUKODE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. N.M.GEORGE, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KADALIKKAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. V.S.DAMODARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, VADAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR – R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON FOR R.3 SRI.M.JITHESH MENON FOR R.3 SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18313/2007 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT WHICH IS VALID UPTO 6/08/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE TIMING NOW BEING OPERATED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 16/12/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION MVARP.NO.54/2007 DTD. 13/2/2007 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MVARP NO.54 OF 2007 DTD. 31/05/2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE PRIOR TO EXT.P2 IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 9/07/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R4(A): COPIES OF THE 'PUNCHING CARDS' OBTAINED FROM THE PUNCHING STATION AT VAZHAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss wpc.no. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18313 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is operating a LSOS service in the route Pathanamthitta - Ernakulam. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4, an order passed by the Tribunal in MVARP 54/2007 filed by the 4th respondent. Petitioner submits that the permit was initially issued to the 3rd respondent, who was operating on the strength of the timing settled on 1.2.2001 implementing Circular No.3. It is stated that thereafter by Ext.P5 order dated 9.7.2003, the timing was revised and 2.25 minutes/kilometer was the running time settled. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, while the 3rd respondent was operating on the strength of Ext.P5, following the finding of this Court regarding the unworkability of Circular No.3, all others were operating at 2 minutes/kilometer. 2. Thereafter the 3rd respondent sought parity in WP(C) 18313/07 2 running time and that was rejected by Ext.R3(d). It is stated that a revision was filed as MVRP 373/2006 resulting in Ext.R3(f) directing parity in running time. It is stated that on that basis, the 3rd respondent's time schedule was revised by Ext.P2, fixing 2 minutes/kilometer and in the meantime the permit was transferred in favour of the petitioner with effect from 7.2.2007, while, according to the 4th respondent, the endorsement was made only on 18.5.2007. 3. Be that as it may, 4th respondent filed a revision before the Tribunal as MVRP 54/2007 on 15.2.2007 impleading the 3rd respondent, being the original permit holder. According to the petitioner, as the permit was already transferred in his favour, the 3rd respondent had no interest in the subject matter and therefore he did not appear or contest the matter and the proceedings culminated in Ext.P4 by which Ext.P2 was reversed and it was held that there was no change of circumstances WP(C) 18313/07 3 justifying revision of timings effected by Ext.P2. It is challenging this order, this writ petition is filed. 4. Though various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the grievance of the petitioner is confined to the operative portion of the order where the Tribunal has not remitted the matter back to the Secretary of RTA for settling of timings in pursuance thereof and I feel that this submission is justified. 5. True, learned counsel for the 4th respondent has a case that irrespective of Ext.P5, petitioner was operating on the strength of timings as settled in 2000, and he would contend for the position that the consequence of Ext.P4 is that the petitioner is at liberty to continue to operate at 2 minutes/kilometer. Even if factually he is right, it cannot be disputed that by Ext.P5 the timing of the petitioner was revised. 6. Therefore Ext.P4 stands set aside and the matter is WP(C) 18313/07 4 remitted back to the Secretary to consider the timings to be scheduled in respect of the petitioner's vehicle. This the Secretary shall do with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent and other affected parties. The Secretary shall also take into account as to whether the original timings of 2000 is available to be allotted to the petitioner, or else, he will fix a suitable timing. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-