IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7345 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.LALITHA, W/O.LATE ANANTHARAMAN, CHANDRAVILA, KONIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR- 680001. 2. M.D.FRANCIS, MENACHERY HOUSE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR, PIN 680020. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7345 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-8 AC 1875 on the route Ponnukkara Post Office - Thrissur. The second respondent, another stage carriage operator, is operating the stage carriage bus bearing registration No.KL-9 L 3419 on a portion of the said route, Thrikkur- Thrissur. Alleging that the time schedule of the second respondent's stage carriage which was fixed as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.1.2008 is not being followed by the second respondent, the petitioner has Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent and Ext.P5 representation before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone, Thrissur requesting the said authorities to take appropriate action in the matter. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as Ext.P3 order has attained finality, the second respondent is bound to operate the stage carriage in strict adherence to the time schedule fixed in Ext.P3. In tis writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to take action against the second respondent for not adhering to the time schedule fixed in Ext.P3 order. 2. The grievance set out in Ext.P4 and in the writ petition W.P.(C) No.7345 of 2011 2 are not similar. While the case set out in the writ petition is that the second respondent is not adhering to the time schedule issued on 31.1.2008 thereby leading to clash of timings, in Ext.P4, the petitioner has a further case that the revised departure time fixed as per Ext.P3 order in respect of the return trip from Thrissur to Ponnukkara Post Office has not been incorporated in the time schedule issued by the first respondent. This according to the petitioner is a mistake. Therefore, in Ext.P4, he has also requested that the departure time should be shown as 7.48 pm. instead of 7.52 pm. by incorporating that change in the time schedule issued to the second respondent. The question whether as claimed by the petitioner Ext.P3 order has attained finality, the second respondent is bound to operate the return trip from Thrissur to Ponnukkara post office at 7.48 pm. and whether the second respondent is operating the trip at 7.52 p.m. instead of 7.48 p.m. are all questions which have to be primarily considered by the first respondent. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder, the first respondent is also empowered to take remedial action, if on enquiry, the first respondent finds that there is merit and substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition and in Ext.P4 W.P.(C) No.7345 of 2011 3 representation. In such circumstances, as several months have passed after Ext.P4 petition was filed, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should enquire into the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law after notice to and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the second respondent. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to enquire into the complaint set out by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and take an appropriate decision thereon with notice to the petitioner and the second respondent expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects before him. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.