IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32428 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.T.JOSE, KONDODICKAL, CHAMPAKARA, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR. P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IDUKKI. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. SHERLY GEORGE, W/O.GRACE MATHEW, CHITTAPANNATTU, MUNDAKAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. MR.M.A.FAYAZ FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are stage carriage operators. They along with three other similar stage carriage operators filed separate applications for conversion of their Limited Stop Ordinary Service to Fast passenger service. All the applications were rejected by the 1st respondent RTA, by verbatim orders of which those relating to petitioner and 3rd respondent are Exts.P1 and P1(a). All the five applicants filed revision petitions before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and all the revisions were allowed directing granting of conversion as Fast Passenger Service subject to settlement of timings. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenged the five judgments of the Tribunal in five separate writ petitions before this court and interim orders of stay were obtained on 29.5.2009 for a period of one month. But the KSRTC did not care to get the stay extended after one month. In the meanwhile since the stay was not extended in the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal in his favour, the 3rd respondent filed W.P(C) No. 16057 of 2009 for a direction to the 1st respondent to implement the judgment of the W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -2- Tribunal to grant conversion of his service as Fast Passenger service. Assuming that Ext.P2(a) judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality, a learned single Judge of this court by Ext.P4 judgment directed the RTA to endorse the conversion as Fast Passenger within six weeks. In accordance with the direction in Ext.P4 judgment, the RTA proceeded to consider the case of the 3rd respondent alone and passed Ext.P5 order, whereby the conversion was granted subject to disposal of the writ petitions pending before this court. Subsequently, this court passed Ext.P7 common judgment in the five writ petitions filed by KSRTC. In that judgment, while dismissing the writ petitions, this court directed the RTA as follows: “For all these reasons, I am of the view that the objection raised by the Corporation against the impugned order of the STAT are neither tenable nor sustainable. But there is one aspect which, in my view, requires to be considered by the RTA before endorsing conversion of the service and proceeding to settle the timings as already directed by the STAT. One of the objections which has been taken by the RTA is the possible detriment that would be caused to the travelling public especially the students if the existing services which have been operating for a long number of years suddenly decide to stop only at fewer points. In the circumstances, RTA shall consider whether the services operated by the permit holders in these cases should be required to stop at more number of points, in exercise of its powers under Rule 206 of the Rules. If the stops abided by the services being operated by the permit holders in the instant cases are sufficient to satisfy the needs of the travelling public, then no further variation W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -3- is called for, for endorsing the conversion from Ordinary service into a Fast Passenger service. But if more stops are found to be necessary then, it shall be open to the RTA to stipulate that such stops are also to be included in the route being operated by the permit holders in the present case and obviously settlement of timings on conversion, will take into account such stops also. But this is a matter that will have to be considered by the respective RTA.” 2. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 26044/09 challenging Ext.P5 order of the RTA in favour of the 3rd respondent. When the same came up before me, I opined that the remedy of the petitioner lies in seeking review of the judgment in W.P(C) No. 16057 of 2009. Accordingly, both the review petition as well as W.P(C) No. 26044 of 2009 came up before the same Judge. But by Ext.P8 order the learned Judge directed the RTA to proceed as per directions in paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment. In view of the order in the R.P., W.P(C) No. 26044/2009 was closed. Petitioner's grievance is that despite all these happenings, the 2nd respondent Secretary RTA has issued Ext.P10 notice convening a conference tomorrow to settle the timings of the 3rd respondent's service in accordance with Ext.P5 order of the RTA, which, according to the petitioner, the Secretary could not have done, since Ext.P5 order was subject to result of the five writ petitions and in Ext.P7 judgment, this court had further directed to consider certain matters before granting conversion, on account of which Ext.P5 W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -4- became unenforceable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P10 and quash the same. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki to grant conversion of service from “Limited Stop Ordinary Service” to Fast Passenger” as directed by the STAT in Ext.P2 judgment and in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the contentions of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader also supports the 3rd respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no fault on the part of the Secretary RTA in the matter as far as he is considered in view of Ext.P5 order. He has not other go but to settle timings of the 3rd respondent's Fast Passenger service by convening a timing conference, which only has been done by Ext.P10. Both the learned Government Pleader and the 3rd respondent would contend that in sofaras in the case of the 3rd respondent there was no request for reduction of stops in respect of his service as Fast Passenger his case is uneffected by the directions in paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment and there is no difficulty in implementing Ext.P5 order of W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -5- the RTA. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Allegations and counter allegations have been traded between the parties before me. I am not inclined to consider the same, in sofaras what I am concerned with is only the legal aspects of the continued validity of Ext.P5 and the action of the Secretary RTA in convening a timing conference for implementing Ext.P5. It is not disputed before me that at the time of issuing Ext.P5 order by RTA on 8.9.2009, Ext.P7 judgment of this court dated 7.10.2009 was not in existence. Ext.P7 is in respect of W.P(C) No. 14767 of 2009 filed by the KSRTC against the 3rd respondent also in respect of his applications for conversion. That writ petition is specifically referred to in Ext.P5 as item No. 5. In Ext.P5, the conversion of Limited Stop Ordinary service into Fast Passenger service on the applications of the 3rd respondent was subject to the decision in W.P(C) No. 14767 of 2009. If the said writ petition was dismissed without any observation as contained in paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment, the 2nd respondent would have been perfectly justified in implementing Ext.P5 by convening as timing conference as done by Ext.P10. But that is not the case here. By paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment the RTA had been directed to further consider as to W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -6- whether on such conversion it would be necessary to reduce any existing stops or whether it is necessary to increase stops to avoid any inconvenience to the travelling students. That being so, since Ext.P5 order was subject to the result of the said writ petition, by virtue of paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment Ext.P5 order loses its relevance as a whole and that cannot be implemented under law. After Ext.P7 judgment, the 3rd respondent's application for conversion should also have been reconsidered by the RTA in terms of paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment and a fresh order passed in the place of Ext.P5. Admittedly after issuing Ext.P5 order, the RTA has not considered the application of the 3rd respondent for conversion again as directed in paragraph 20 of the judgment. Therefore the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA could not have validly implemented Ext.P5 by convening a timing conference as done by Ext.P10. As such the RTA has to now again consider the 3rd respondent's application for conversion as also those of the other four operators as directed in paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment. It is only thereafter the 2nd respondent can convene a timing conference to settle the timings of all the five services for which applications for conversion are to be considered by the RTA in accordance with paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore Ext.P10 is quashed. W.P(C) No. 32428 of 2009 -7- RTA is directed to consider all the five applications in accordance with paragraph 20 of Ext.P7 judgment in its next meeting. Thereafter, the Secretary shall settle the timings of all the five applicants by convene a fresh timing conference. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs