IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2217 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PREMA R.P. W/O. RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 38 YEARS, POONGODE HOUSE ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2217/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETTIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 02/11/2007. P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/02/2007. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2008. P4 : COPY OF THE MVARP NO.331/2008. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2008 IN MVARP NO.331/2008. P6 : COPY OF THE PROPOSED TIMINGS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2217 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that she is operating her stage carriage in the route Kozhinjampara-Thrissur via. Alathur. According to her, in 2005 she applied for revision of her timings, resulting in Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. She was not satisfied with the timings as revised and therefore she moved the 2nd respondent again by Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that in the representation leading to Ext.P1 also she sought parity in running time with other similar operators, in as much as according to her, while the other operators were operating 2.32 minutes/km, the petitioner was granted running time of 2.4 minutes/km. It is stated that this issue was not addressed in Ext.P1. This was again reiterated in Ext.P2. Timings were resettled again by Ext.P3. However, the claim of party in running time again was not addressed. She filed a revision as per Ext.P4 before the STAT, where also this grievance has been urged in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the statement of facts, in addition to this, her other arguments regarding the allotment of timings. However, WP(C) No.2217/2009 -2- the Tribunal rejected the revision as per Ext.P5 mainly on the ground that the affected operators were not impleaded as parties to the revision. The petitioner contends that in Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, only the name of the KSRTC was disclosed and the KSRTC was impleaded in the revision also. On this ground, the petitioner submits that the Tribunal should not have found fault with her for not impleading other operators. 2. Thus, in this writ petition, there are mainly two grievances. One is regarding the non-consideration of her claim for parity in running time and the other regarding the timings fixed. 3. A reading of Exts.P3 & P5 show that the claim for parity in running time was not addressed, although, the petitioner raised this grievance along with her grievance regarding the timings as settled. However, at all levels this issue was not addressed. On facts, therefore, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P3 & P5 and direct that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P2 request of the petitioner. This shall be done with notice to all affected parties. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, WP(C) No.2217/2009 -3- within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the petitioner will continue operation on the strength of Ext.P3 timings and this position will continue until or otherwise revised by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg