IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7096 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MAMMED, KODALIPULIKOTTIL HOUSE, PULPATTA P.O., (VIA) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7096 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage on the route Kuttipuram – Tirur via. Thirunavaya, Kodikkal, Perinthalmanna, on the strength of a permit that was granted on 21.1.2010 after settlement of timings. The time schedule was settled by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram by Ext.P1 order dated 20.9.2010. Thereupon Ext.P2 regular permit was also issued. The petitioner started operating the service thereafter. A few days later he submitted Ext.P3 application before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, requesting him to finalise the timings. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider Ext.P3 application and take an appropriate decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. In my opinion in the absence of any change in the circumstances after Ext.P1 order was passed the petitioner cannot seek a revision of the timings. The remedy of the W.P(C).No.7096 of 2011 -:2:- petitioner, if he was aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, was to challenge the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court has in Krishnankutty v. John, 1992 (2) KLT 883 held that the power under rule 212 of the Motor Vehicles Rules can be exercised only if the situation or circumstance as obtained on the date of grant of the permit has altered. It was held that the time schedule settled earlier can be altered only if there is a change in the circumstance or by emergence of new state of affairs which did not exist when the earlier order was passed. 3. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench the petitioner cannot seek variation of the time schedule. This Court cannot therefore direct the respondent to entertain Ext.P3 and pass orders thereon applying rule 212 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition or to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.7096 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th March, 2011