IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29515 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.JOSEPH, PADAVAM HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 001. 3. CHARLY GEORGE, CHALIL HOUSE, VENKURINJI, ERUMELY-686 509. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.29515/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF STAT DATED 6.12.2007. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6478 OF 2009 DATED 19.3.2009. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 3.3.2010. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIATION APPLICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.2011. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2011. . / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route Changanacherry - Kanjirapally on the strength of a regular permit. The third respondent is yet another operator. He was operating a stage carriage service on the route Changanacherry - Pachima on the strength of a regular permit. The third respondent applied for a variation of the permit by curtailing a portion of the route, namely from Mundakayam to Pachima and extension of the service from Mundakayam to Elamkadu, a distance of 14 kms. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, rejected the request for curtailment of a portion of the route, but allowed the extension sought for. The third respondent carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 6.12.2007 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting the application for variation by curtailment of a portion of the route and granted the variation as sought for by the third respondent subject to settlement of timings. W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 -:2:- 2. Even after the expiry of one year, the timings were not settled and variation was not endorsed on the permit. The third respondent therefore, moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6478 of 2009. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 19.3.2009 this Court directed the first respondent herein to settle the timings and to endorse the variation on the permit within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. By Ext.P5 proceedings dated 3.3.2010 which was issued nearly one year thereafter, the time schedule of the third respondent's stage carriage was settled. Third respondent thereafter again applied for variation of the permit and the said application was considered in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam held on 18.6.2011. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam decided to grant the variation sought subject to settlement of timings, as can be seen from Ext.P8 proceedings. Thereafter the time schedule was also settled by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, as can be seen from Ext.P9 proceedings dated 23.8.2011. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9 and seeking a direction to the third respondent to operate the service on the route with the set of timings settled as per Ext.P5. W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 -:3:- 3. The main ground of challenge to the impugned orders is that the agenda which was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, when it met on 18.6.2011 was defective and not in accordance with rule 126 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The relevant averments in that regard are contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition, which are as follows:- “7. Immediately, after Ext.P5 another application for variation of permit so as to provide an additional trip from Mundakayam to Mangapetta, was submitted. The said application was boarded for consideration in the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 18.6.2011. The copy of the relevant portion of the agenda is produced and marked as Exhibit-P6. In Ext.P6, the timing of the proposed variation was not shown. From Ext.P6 it can be ascertained that the permit hold intends to provide one additional trip from Mundakayam to Mangapetta without curtailment of the existing trips. 8. It is pertinent to note the application for variation of permit has to be submitted in the prescribed form and such application should contain the details of the existing permit as well the proposed variation sought by the permit holder. Further, the permit holder has to furnish the existing timing as well as the proposed set of timing along with the application. The 1st W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 -:4:- respondent while publishing the agenda of the meeting is bound to exhibit the details of variation by producing the existing as well as the proposed timing so as to make availablel the details of the variation to other operators. In the instant case, a dubious method was adopted by the 3rd respondent and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the timing and details of the variation was not published in the agenda. As per rule 126 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, the Secretary shall, under the general or special instructions of the Chairman, place before the Regional Transport Authority all matters which it is to decide. That is all matters concerning an application, like the details of permit, details of extension sought for, the existing timing as well as the proposed timings are necessarily to be incorporated in the agenda. 9. The 2nd respondent is well aware about the mode of publication of the agenda. As per supplementary agenda of the same meeting, one application for variation of permit submitted by another operator was considered and agenda contains all the matters relating to the permit, variation sought for and also both existing as well as proposed timings. The copy of the relevant portion of the agenda is produced and marked as Exhibit P7. On a perusal of Exts.P6 and P7 it is revealed that all matters relating to variation of permit were not published in the agenda and the W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 -:5:- agenda is not in accordance with Rule 126 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Thus, the type of variation sought by the 3rd respondent was not made known to the other operators, which prevented the petitioner and other operators in submitting their objection to the proposed variation of permit. If the existing and proposed timings are published in the agenda, the details of variation can be revealed to the other operators and they would be in a position to submit their objection to the proposed variation of permit.” 4. The case set out in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition is that the petitioner did not object to the variation sought by the third respondent for the reason that the type of variation sought was not made known to him and other operators. However, the petitioner has no case that he was unaware of Ext.P6 agenda or of the meeting that was held on 18.6.2011. The writ petition is totally silent as regards that aspect of the matter. From a reading of the writ petition it is evident that the petitioner was aware, but he did not object. In the absence of a pleading to the effect that he was unaware of what transpired on 18.6.2011, the challenge to Exts.P8 and P9 cannot be entertained. That apart, if the petitioner was really aware of Ext.P6 agenda, he could have challenged Ext.P8 by filing an appeal or a revision W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 -:6:- petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within the stipulated time. The petitioner has, in my opinion, failed to prove with reference to cogent material that he was unaware of Ext.P6 agenda or of what transpired on 18.6.2011. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. . P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.29515 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 9th December, 2011