IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26597 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIJO GEORGE, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE RAMALOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR MR. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 26597 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding a permit to operate a limited stop ordinary service on the route Koviloor - Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 proceedings dated 12.5.2003, timings of his service were settled. At that time, he was given a rate of running time as 2.25 minutes per kilometer in plain area and 2.5 minutes per kilometer in ghat section. Subsequently pursuant to orders of this court in writ petition challenging circular No. 3 of 1997 issued by the State Transport Authority, running time of the service of the petitioner has been revised with two minutes per kilometer in plain area and 2.25 minutes per kilo meter in ghat area as running time, by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 6.8.2009. However, the petitioner has now been served with Ext.P3 notice directing him to appear for a timing conference allegedly on the objection filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is challenging the action of the 1st respondent in convening the timing conference. According to the petitioner, once timings has been settled in a timing conference, the Secretary RTA has no power to revise the settled timings on the W.P(C) No. 26597 of 2009 -2- objection of the 2nd respondent who had also participated in the earlier timing conference. If the 2nd respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P2 timings issued to the petitioner, the remedy of the 2nd respondent lies in filing a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner relies on two Division Bench decisions of this court in Krishnankutty v. John [1992(2) KLT 883] and M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob & another [1995 (1) KLJ 296] in support of this contention. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to the case and declare that Exhibit P3 and the proposed proceedings entertaining objection on Exhibit.P2 is not maintainable and beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. ii) to stay the operation and all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.” 2. Both the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the KSRTC oppose the prayers. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am satisfied that after having issued Ext.P2 timings to the petitioner, on 6.8.2009 the 1st respondent cannot initiate fresh proceedings for change of those timings, on the objection of the 2nd respondent. If the 2nd respondent has any grievance regarding Ext.P2 timings, his remedy lies in filing a revision W.P(C) No. 26597 of 2009 -3- before the Tribunal. That being so, the proceedings initiated by Ext.P3 is clearly vitiated. Accordingly all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs