IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2547 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.DIVAKARAN, AGED 54, NJARAKOTTIL VEEDU, KARAKURISSI P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. N.UNNIYAN, NEERANI HOUSE, KANHIRAVALLI, PUNCHAKOD, MANNARKKAD. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R3 BY SRI.MANOJ.P.M. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 31617 OF 2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.812/07 DT. 22.4.08 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING HELD ON 22.8.2008 RELATING TO ITEM 7 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.8.2008 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.25463 OF 2009 DATED 2.11.2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.2547 & 31617 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010:- The petitioner is a resident of Karakurissi and a member of Karakurissi Grama Panchayat. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowing an appeal filed by the third respondent, a stage carriage operator. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The third respondent who was operating a stage carriage on the route Konikkazhy – Attassery via Pulapatta, Thumbakkanny, Ponnamkode, Mannarkkad and Kottappuram moved an application before the Regional Transport Authority for variation of the permit by seeking an extension of the route. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 16.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 order passed on 22.4.2008, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, to grant the variation of permit as sought by the appellant subject to settlement of timings. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a W.P.(C) Nos.2547 & 31617 of 2010 2 proposal for settlement of timings. It was considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 22.8.2008. Though the Tribunal granted variation of permit in implementation of Ext.P1 judgment, the Regional Transport Authority directed that the existing timings shall be maintained. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.25463 of 2009. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 2.11.2009, after notice to and hearing the official respondents, a learned single Judge of this Court held that Ext.P3 is not in tune with Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P3 was accordingly quashed and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with Ext.P1 judgment and to pass orders at its next meeting. Pursuant to the said direction, the Regional Transport Authority that met on 28.1.2010 granted the variation subject to settlement of timings. It was at that stage that this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the extent it directs grant of variation subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner contends that if the existing timings are varied, it will affect the travelling public and therefore the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought to have granted variation subject to settlement of timings in the extended route only. W.P.(C) Nos.2547 & 31617 of 2010 3 3. W.P.(C) No.31617/2010:- The third respondent in W.P. (C) No.2547/2010 is the petitioner in this writ petition. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad in holding a timing conference pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment and the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 28.1.2010 to grant a variation of the permit subject to settlement of timings. 4. I heard Sri.M.Jitesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010, Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31617 of 2010/third respondent in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 and Sri.Manoj.P.M., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the pleadings and materials on record that the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 is entitled to variation of the permit which was granted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext.P1 judgment. The entitlement of the third respondent for such variation of the permit is not in dispute. The only question is whether the existing timings should be maintained in respect of the original route and whether the third W.P.(C) Nos.2547 & 31617 of 2010 4 respondent is entitled to seek a variation of the timings. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Ext.P4 judgment produced in W.P. (C) No.2547 of 2010 held that the third respondent is entitled to have his case considered in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents discloses that though timing conferences were held on 2.6.2009, 21.8.2009 and 15.9.2009 after vide publicity, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 did not raise any objection against the variation granted to the third respondent or the settlement of timings. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 has not filed a reply affidavit refuting the said contention. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 has not objected to the settlement of timings following the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority to grant variation of the permit in implementation of Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, I am of the opinion that he cannot years after the State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed Ext.P1 judgment move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that if the variation is granted subject to settlement of timings, it will affect his individual right and the rights of the travelling public. I am W.P.(C) Nos.2547 & 31617 of 2010 5 therefore of the considered opinion that the objection raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 to the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P1 judgment is without any merit. W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2010 fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the view that I have taken, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31617 of 2010 is entitled to succeed. I accordingly dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to settle the timings and to issue a varied permit in implementation of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority on 28.1.2010 expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment before him. Needless to say, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad shall issue notice to the petitioner and the existing operators on the route before taking a decision in the matter. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.