IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19044 of 2011(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- ABDUL HAKKEEM P.K., POOLONNUKANDY HOUSE, P.O.UNNIKULAM, KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA-673 101. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 19044 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION FILED FOR REVISION OF OWN TIMINGS 24-6-2011, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19044 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Vakayad-Balussery-Naduvannur-Perambra on the strength of a regular permit. The time schedule in respect of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled on 9.7.2010. Recently on 24.6.2011, he submitted Ext.P1 application before the respondent seeking a revision of his time schedule, wherein it is stated that after the time schedule of his stage carriage was settled, three services were introduced on the route by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and the timings in respect of other stage carriages were revised. This writ petition is filed seeking expeditious disposal of Ext.P1 application alleging that the delay on the part of the respondents in passing orders on Ext.P1 is arbitrary and unfortunate. Apart from stating that Ext.P1 representation dated 24.6.2011 was filed before the respondent, the petitioner has not stated the date on which the said representation was submitted. He has not stated whether it was sent by post or submitted in person. A mandamus can be issued only when there is failure on the part of a statutory or public authority to discharge its duties. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act and W.P.(C) No.19044 of 2011 2 the Rules framed thereunder do not stipulate any time limit within which an application for variation of the time schedule has to be disposed of. Though it can be contended that even in the absence of a statutory prescription, the statutory authority should take expeditious decision on the application submitted by the petitioner, it cannot be said that failure to pass orders on an application for revision of the time schedule within two weeks from the date of the application can be described as a case of inordinate delay on the part of the respondent. Before the time schedule is revised other operators will have to be put on notice and given an opportunity to file their objections. This writ petition is, in my opinion, an absue of the process of court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.