IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30881 of 2011(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BASKARAN K, S/O.KRISHNAN,KILIVAYIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGALLUR,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30881/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/08/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT SEEKING REVISION OF HIS OWN TIMINGS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 30881 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Valanchery – Kozhikode - Thrissur on the strength of a regular permit. He applied for a revision of the time schedule and it was considered in the timing conference held on 20.7.2011. Dissatisfied with that he has filed Ext.P1 representation dated 18.8.2011 before the respondent once again seeking a revision of the time schedule. This writ petition is filed for an order directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 and take an appropriate decision thereon. 2. Though the petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that the time schedule of his stage carriage was last revised on 20.7.2011, it is evident from Ext.P1 representation that a timing conference was held on 20.7.2011 and the time schedule of his stage carriage was revised. The petitioner has no case in Ext.P1 representation that the circumstances which obtained on 20.7.2011 have changed thereafter. A Division Bench of this Court has in Krishnankutty v.John (1992 (2) KLT 883) held WP(C)No.30881 of 2011 -2- that the power vested in the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority under rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 can be exercised only if there exists any altered or changed situation or circumstance by emergence of a new state of affairs which did not exist when the earlier order settling the time schedule was passed. The petitioner has no case in Ext.P1 representation that after the time schedule of his stage carriage was last revised on 20.7.2011 a new state of affairs which did not exist when the order was passed on 20.7.2011 has emerged. Such being the situation, the first respondent is not bound to consider Ext.P1 or pass orders thereon. The remedy of the petitioner if he is aggrieved by the order passed on 20.7.2011 revising the time schedule of his stage carriage is to challenge it in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Without prejudice to that right this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge.