IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22898 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MUJEEB RAHMAN. M, S/O.MAMMU HAJEE, MUNNOOL HOUSE, CHERAPURAM P.O,KAKKATTIL VIA., PIN- 673 507. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA- 673 101. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22898/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TIMING ISSUED ORDER NO. G/11002/2011-V TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 30/06/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 26/07/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22898 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Vatakara – Ayancheri – Kakkattil – Kuttiadi on the strength of a regular permit which was recently issued. The time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled only on 30.6.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P1 proceedings. Within a month thereafter he submitted Ext.P2 petition before the respondent seeking a revision of the time schedule. As per Ext.P1 proceedings the petitioner's stage carriage has to leave Vatakara at 5.46 p.m. The petitioner has requested for a revision of the time schedule on the ground that if after reaching Vatakara at 5.40 p.m. the bus departs at 5.46 p.m., it is likely to result in accidents on account of over speed. In Ext.P2 he has also requested that the departure time of his stage carriage from Vatakara at 3.15 p.m. may also be altered. From a reading of the writ petition and Ext.P2 it is evident that there has been no change in circumstances after the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled on W.P(C).No.22898 of 2011 -:2:- 30.6.2011. The state of affairs referred to by the petitioner in Ext.P2 were in existence when Ext.P1 order was passed settling the timings. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnankutty v. John, 1992(2) KLT 883 the statutory authority can act under rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules only if any ground or reason which was not in existence when the time schedule was originally settled exists. It was also held that any ground or reason can exist only in altered or changed situations or circumstances or by the emergence of a new state of affairs which did not exist when the earlier order was passed. The same view was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in Joji Edattel v. The Secretary, R.T.A., Idukki, 2004 (1) KLT 493. From a reading of Ext.P2 application it is evident that the petitioner has no case that there has been a change in the circumstances after the timings of the stage carriage were settled. Such being the situation this Court cannot by a writ of mandamus compel the respondents to entertain Ext.P2 application and pass orders thereon. The remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by Ext.P1, was to challenge it in revision before the State W.P(C).No.22898 of 2011 -:3:- Transport Appellate Tribunal under section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances I do not find any reason to grant the relief prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.22898 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 23rd August, 2011