IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13895 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- C.O.JOHNSON, S/O.OUSEPH, 4/558, CHEERAN HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTIL K.ANTONY, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 4. SRI.P.A.SIVARAMAN, PARAMMAL HOUSE, PANNISSERY, KOONAMMOOCHI, GURUVAYUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR R4 BY ADV.SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.13895 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-8 AR/5655 conducting services on the strength of a regular permit on the route Kodungallur - Guruvayur - Kozhikode. The permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority(RTA), Thrissur and the timings of the petitioner were settled thereafter by the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur. 2. While so, a timing conference was convened at Malappuram, whereby the timings of another Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL-46/A 2399 were revised. At the said timing conference, the timings of the petitioner for one particular trip was also altered. It is the case of the petitioner that, when the said modification was received, he approached the RTA, Thrissur for the purpose of incorporating the said change in his time schedule. Since his request was not considered, he approached this court by preferring WP(C)No.4459 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court directing the RTA, Thrissur Wpc 13895/2010 2 to pass orders on the request made by the petitioner. However, the petitioner complains that the RTA, Thrissur has now taken a stand that he is not bound by the changes made by the RTA, Malappuram. Consequently, the petitioner is in a situation where the RTA, Malappuram would not permit him to operate with the timings issued by the RTA, Thrissur while the RTA, Thrissur would not permit him to operate with the changes incorporated by the RTA, Malappuram. The petitioner has also filed a statutory revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal(STAT) under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, no interim orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court seeking to set aside Ext.P4. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the timings alloted to him by the RTA, Malappuram is actually the timings that have been alloted to another operator by the RTA, Kannur. Therefore, the said operator has objected to the same before the RTA, Thrissur. 4. Adv.Saju Jose Vallyara appears for the fourth respondent. He opposes the prayers sought for by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the timings of the petitioner were altered by the RTA, Malappuram only on the consent of the petitioner. That was the reason why the Wpc 13895/2010 3 petitioner had no objection to the said alteration. In fact, it is pointed out that the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking incorporation of the said timings into his settled timings. Having done so, it is not open to him now to turn around and question the authority of the RTA, Malappuram to issue the said timings. 5. In view of the fact that the alteration that was effected to the timings of the petitioner by the RTA, Malappuram was with his consent, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the said alteration was without jurisdiction. Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the said authority, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and question the action when he finds that the same is not inconvenient to him. However, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be dismissed as being without substance. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the timings alloted to him was actually the timing of another operator who has also objected to the said allotment. The resultant situation is that the petitioner is not able to operate either with his earlier timings or with his present timings. The above situation could be remedied only by the RTA, Thrissur who is the competent authority to settle the timings of the petitioner. The third respondent is Wpc 13895/2010 4 sufficiently empowered to make suitable alterations in the timings of the petitioner with due notice to the persons who are likely to be affected and to work out a convenient set of timings for the petitioner to operate his services conveniently. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, resolving the stalemate and settling a set of suitable timings for the petitioner to operate his service comfortably, if necessary, after consulting the RTA, Malappuram also and after hearing all interested parties. If it is found necessary, the third respondent may also alter the timings settled as per Ext.P4, to work out a solution. A decision as indicated above, shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk