IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23215 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY ANTOS, CHARADIKAKYAVEETTIL, PARAYIL, EDAMARUKU, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 686 661. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661. 3. N.M.GEORGE, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KADALIKKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 679. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682 016. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.23215 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S TIMING DATED 21.6.2004. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.7.2003 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 1.11.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.4.2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT 13.6.2011. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.12.2007 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET FOR THE VEHICLE KL 24/1863 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET FOR THE VEHICLE KL 17/F 3671 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 6.4.1993. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 8.12.2006. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 26.11.2007. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 6.3.2007. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP 177/2011 DATED 13.6.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23215 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Uthimood-Ernakulam on the strength of a regular permit as an Express service. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The third respondent is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Kanjirappally – Ernakulam as a Limited Stop Ordinary service with a running time of 2.25 minutes per kilometer. The sector Thodupuzha – Ernakulam is common to the service operated by the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent submitted Ext.P3 application dated 1.11.2010 before the second respondent seeking a reduction of the running time from 2.25 minutes per kilometer to 2 minutes per kilometer. In that representation he pointed out that other Limited Stop services are operating with a running time of 2 minutes per kilometer. By Ext.P4 order passed on 20.4.2011, the second respondent rejected the application taking note of the objections raised by other stage carriage operators. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed Ext.P5 W.P.(C) No.23215 of 2011 2 revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Along with it, he produced Exts.P6 to P12 in support of his contention that other Limited Stop Ordinary services are operating with a running time of 2 minutes per kilometer and therefore he has been discriminated against. By Ext.P13 order passed on 13.6.2011, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition, set aside Ext.P4 and directed the second respondent to re-fix the running time of the third respondent's stage carriage as 2 minutes per kilometer. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P13. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the reliance placed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on Exts.P6 to P12 to hold that the third respondent has been discriminated against is misconceived. It is contended that Exts.P6, P7 and P9 relate to Fast Passenger services and not to Limited Stop Ordinary services, that Ext.P10 relates to a stage carriage which was being operated by the petitioner himself as a Limited Stop Ordinary service, but was later surrendered, that Ext.P11 relates to a Limited Stop Ordinary service which is operating on a different sector and not on the route Thodupuzha – Ernakulam as a Limited Stop Ordinary service and Ext.P12 relates to a Super Express service which was later converted into Limited Stop Ordinary service and therefore those W.P.(C) No.23215 of 2011 3 documents could not have been relied on to hold that the third respondent has been discriminated against in the matter of fixing the running time. Ext.P11 relates to a stage carriage which the petitioner is operating on the route Thulappilly – Mankulam as Limited Stop Ordinary service. The petitioner has no case that the running time of that stage carriage is not 2 minutes per kilometer or that the running time of that stage carriage is 2.25 minutes per kilometer. The only argument put forward is that the said stage carriage does not operate on the sector Thodupuzha – Ernakulam. In my opinion, the petitioner who is operating a stage carriage service on the route Thulappilly – Mankulam as a Limited Stop Ordinary service with a running time of 2 minutes per kilometer cannot be heard to contend that no other stage carriage operator can be allowed to operate a stage carriage with the same running time. That apart, the class of service which the petitioner is operating is different from the class of service of the third respondent. The petitioner is operating an Express service with a running time of 1.75 minutes per kilometer. The petitioner has no case that if the request of the third respondent is granted, it will lead to a clash of timings. Even assuming that there is a clash of timings, it is a matter which the petitioner can raise when consequent on the reduction of running time, the time schedule of the third respondent's W.P.(C) No.23215 of 2011 4 stage carriage is attempted to be re-fixed. Such being the situation, I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The challenge to Ext.P13 is in my opinion without any merit. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23215 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 26th August, 2011 --------------------------------------