IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31457 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- [MVARP.NO.91/2010 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.NAZAR,KARUKUNNATH HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN, SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 3. A.S.NAZEER, ATHIKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTETHUKKARA, CEPZ P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 678 537. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM- 682 016. R1, R2 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.31457/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS TIMINGS VEHICLE NO.KL 17/9199. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S TIMINGS VEHICLE NO. KL-7/AK 3917. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE R.T.A. PROCEEDINGS DATED 18-11-2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 6975/2010 DATED 12-3-2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED TIMING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31-3-2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION IN MVARP NO. 91/2010 DATED 12-4-2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 13-10-2010. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 91/2010 DATED 29-6-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31457 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Tripunithura – Kakkanad – Ernakulam on the strength of a regular permit, as per Ext.P1 time schedule. The third respondent is another stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Tripunithura – Aluva via. Irimpanam, Kakkanad, Athani, Mundampalam, Kangarapady and Carmel Hospital. He applied for a variation of the permit so as to enable him to operate three trips on the route Tripunithura – Edachira via. Infopark, two trips to operate through Sea Port Airport Road to HMT, Medical College to Aluva and two trips on the route Tripunithura – HMT Junction, via. Sea Port Air Port Road. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, that met on 18.11.2008 resolved to grant the variation subject to settlement of timings. Thereupon the time schedule was settled. When a copy of the proceedings settling the timings was not issued and the third respondent was therefore not in a position to challenge W.P(C).No.31457 of 2011 -:2:- the settlement of timings consequent on the variation of the permit, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6975 of 2010. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered in that writ petition this Court directed the second respondent to issue a certified copy of the proceedings settling the timings pursuant to Ext.P3 and thereupon, Ext.P5, a copy of the proceedings settling the timings was furnished to the third respondent. 3. The third respondent thereupon filed M.V.A.R.P.No.91 of 2010 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is a copy of the memorandum of the revision petition. In that revision petition he contended in paragraphs 7 and 8 and grounds B and C that after reaching Kakkanad at 3.02 p.m., his stage carriage has to wait till 4.17 p.m. to go to Edachira thereby resulting in the vehicle remaining idle for one hour and 15 minutes. Likewise he also pointed out that in the next trip the stage carriage reaches Kakkanad at 5.44 p.m. and has to wait till 6.30 p.m till it departs to Edachira and that the halting time at Kakkanad on the two trips defeats the very purpose of granting the variation. He therefore sought an appropriate revision of the time schedule. In that revision petition the petitioner herein got himself impleaded as additional third respondent. By Ext.P8 order passed on 29.6.2011 after hearing the learned counsel appearing W.P(C).No.31457 of 2011 -:3:- for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 herein, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside Ext.P5 and remitted the matter back to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam for fresh consideration of the timings of the aforesaid two trips after affording the petitioner herein and the third respondent and other operators, if any interested, an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the Tribunal passed the impugned order on the mistaken notion that after reaching Kakkanad at 3.02 p.m. the third respondent's stage carriage has to wait till 4.17 p.m. for going to Edachira, that thereafter his vehicle has to reach Kakkanad at 5.44 p.m. and wait there till 6.30 p.m. It is contended that had the Tribunal been posted with the real state of affairs, the impugned order would not have been passed. In my opinion, there is no merit in the said contention. The third respondent had in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ext.P6 revision petition and grounds B and C thereof stated with clarity that his stage carriage is forced to wait at Kakkanad from 3.02 p.m. till 4.17 p.m. when it starts on the journey to Tripunithura and thereafter his vehicle has to reach Kakkanad at 5.44 p.m. and wait there till 6.30 p.m. The petitioner, who was a party to the revision petition he having got himself impleaded, had W.P(C).No.31457 of 2011 -:4:- also filed Ext.P7 counter affidavit, dated 13.10.2010. It is thus evident that the statement in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 order that the third respondent's stage carriage has to wait at Kakkanad from 3.02 p.m. to 4.17 p.m. before proceeding to Edachira is only an inadvertent error and does not affect the merits of the decision. This is also evident from the observations in paragraph 4 of Ext.P8. A reading of Ext.P8 order indicates that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was satisfied that the grievance put forward by the third respondent regarding the idling time at Kakkanad on the two trips requires to be redressed by the second respondent. It is evident from the findings and observations in Ext.P8 order that it was not passed under a misconception that the third respondent's stage carriage has to wait at Kakkanad from 3.02 p.m. to 4.17 p.m. to go to Edachira. I therefore, find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P8. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. It fails and is dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.31457 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st December, 2011