IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19918 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FAISAL A, OYASIS,KALLUMTHAZHAM PO, KOLLAM. 2. NISHI RAJEEV, ADUNGLASSERY,VALIYAKADA CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 3. VIJAYANAD,ANANDABHAVAN,KODUMON, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. V.RATHEESH,KOCHUVILA VEEDU, MELEVETTOOR PO, VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.19918/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR REVISION OF TIMINGS. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 6.7.2009 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH DELAY PETITION DATED 25.4.2010 FILED BEFORE THE STAT. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 25.4.2010 FILED BEFORE THE STAT. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AS THE VACANT TIMING OF KCT 3839 EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF KCT 3839 EXT.P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.92/2010 DATED 24.7.2010 EXT.P11. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.1.2011 EXT.P12. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2011. EXT.P13. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2877 OF 2009 DATED 18.12.2009. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19918 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are stage carriage operators operating stage carriages on various routes in Kollam district. The first petitioner is operating a service on the route Kollam - Madathara, the second petitioner is operating a service on the route Varkala Temple - Kundara and the third petitioner on the route Varkala - Chirayinkeezhu. The second respondent is another stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Varkala - Kulathupuzha. The second respondent submitted Ext.P4 application dated 6.2.2009 before the first respondent seeking revision of time schedule allotted to his stage carriage. By Ext.P5 order passed on 6.7.2009, the first respondent issued a fresh set of timings to the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent filed M.V.A.R.P.No.92 of 2010 along with an application to condone the delay of 344 days in filing the revision petition. By Ext.P10 order passed on 24.7.2010 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal remanded the second respondent's W.P(C).No.19918 of 2011 -:2:- application to the first respondent to consider the feasibility of allotting the time schedule of stage carriage KCT 3839, which was operating on the very same route but had ceased to operate. 2. The first respondent thereafter held a timing conference on 31.1.2011 after notice to all the affected operators including the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. By Ext.P11 order passed on 31.1.2011 the first respondent altered the time schedule allotted as per Ext.P5 and issued a fresh set of timings for the second respondent's stage carriage. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P11 proceedings issued by the first respondent revising the time schedule of the second respondent's stage carriage. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the second respondent to operate the service based on the schedule fixed as per Ext.P5. The main ground of challenge to Ext.P11 is that Ext.P10 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing the first respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 application was passed without notice to other stage carriage operators including the petitioner and therefore Ext.P10 order is bad. The petitioners have not however, prayed for setting aside Ext.P10 order. That apart, Ext.P11 order discloses that the said order was passed after a timing conference was held on W.P(C).No.19918 of 2011 -:3:- 31.1.2011 with due notice to all the affected operators operating in the sector including the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioners have no case that they were not aware of the timing conference. They have also no case that they had participated in the timing conference and raised objections to the set of timings proposed by the second respondent. I am therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners cannot, at this distance of time, object to the settlement of timings by Ext.P11 order. If the petitioners were really interested in objecting to the time schedule stated by the petitioner, they ought to have participated in the timing conference and raised their objections. I therefore, find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P11. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.19918 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th August, 2011