IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11663 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.S.SIDDIQUE, AGED 49, S/O. SAIDALAVI, MULAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN-679 531. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 2. C.P.RASHEED, CHOMAYIL HOUSE, S.M.P JUNCTION, SHORNUR-1. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 11663 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating stage carriage services on the route Nedumpura-Pattambi and Chelakkara-Pattambi respectively. The 2nd respondent is operating a stage carriage service on the route Thrissur-Pattambi. The 2nd respondent moved the 1st respondent seeking variation of the running time by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 16.9.2010. In that application, he requested that the running time of 2 minutes per kilometer may be revised to 2.5 minutes per kilometer, as is alloted to the stage carriages mentioned therein. He thereafter filed W.P(C) No.30405 of 2010 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 11.10.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders thereon expeditiously, and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Court also directed that notice may be given to the 2nd respondent and other operators operating stage carriages on the route. 2. The petitioner states that on coming to know of the said W.P.(C) No. 11663 of 2011 -2- direction, he submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 11.3.2011 before the 1st respondent pointing out that 2nd respondent is not entitled to revision of the timings. In that representation he stated that the stage carriage services mentioned in Ext.P1 application are ordinary services and, therefore, the 2nd respondent who is operating a limited stop ordinary service can not claim parity of running time with the stage carriages mentioned in Ext.P1. 3. This writ petition is filed seeking mainly a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection filed by the petitioner, while considering the request made by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P1. The petitioner states that unless this Court directs the 1st respondent to consider the objections raised in Ext.P3 representation, the same will not be considered and, therefore, he is constrained to file this writ petition. The relevant averments in that regard are contained in paragraph (5) of the writ petition, which reads thus:- “Though Ext.P3 has been received by the 1st respondent on 23-3-2011 it is understood that the same would not be taken into consideration unless there is an order from this Hon'ble Court to that effect. Otherwise, Ext.P1 request which was directed to be considered by this Hon'ble Court by Ext.P2 judgment would be considered alone without taking into consideration Ext.P3 judgment.” 4. In my opinion, in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11663 of 2011 -3- Ext.P2 judgment, notice will have to be issued to the 2nd respondent as also other operators on the route. The petitioner an existing operator, has already opposed the revision of running time sought by the 2nd respondent by submitting Ext.P3. If as claimed by him, Ext.P3 has been filed, the 1st respondent necessarily have to consider the same in view of the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. The petitioner cannot therefore, be heard to contend that unless a separate direction is issued at his instance, the 1st respondent will not consider his objections. A second direction from this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner though he is not a party to the earlier writ petition is, therefore, not called for. I, accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK