IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30238 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.P. JOY, MANGALATH PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, ATHIYODI, KOORACHUND, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO.WPC NOS. 31182, 33224, 19989, 31827, 34368,AND 35605 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Common issue which arises for consideration in all these cases relates to the alleged delay on the part of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram in dealing with applications for grant of regular permit, or settling timings in relation to varied permits or dealing with applications for revision of existing timings. It was found that there is a persistent complaint as regards the undue delay on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to deal with applications filed by operators invoking provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. 2. Learned Government Pleader was therefore requested to get instructions as to what was the reason for such delay. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondent and thereafter reply affidavit has been filed by the W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 2 petitioner. It is contended that for several months together timing conferences were not convened by the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram. The Joint Regional Transport Officer is burdened with work and therefore is not in a position to convene timing conferences. Statistics in a tabular form showing the pendency of applications have been given in the said statement. Reference has been made to the directions issued by this Court on several occasions, in individual cases, to deal with applications in a time bound manner and this in turns disables the Secretary , Regional Transport Authority in maintaining a list of priority with reference to any certain date. 4. Taking note of all these factors, learned Government Pleader was again requested to get instructions as to whether the Government can appoint on an ad hoc basis, an additional officer to clear the arrears and to see that the Secretary, RTA is in a position to deal with applications which come on a regular basis. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Government has decided to make available the services of W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 3 one Sri.K.N.Gopi, Regional Transport Officer (nationalised centre), Thiruvananthapuram, on deputation to assist the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram for conducting timing conferences. I appreciate the expeditious manner in which action has been taken in this regard by the Transport Commissioner and by the learned Government Pleader Smt.Sudha Devi. 6. In the result, respondents are directed to see that the services of Sri.K.N.Gopi is made available for the purpose of convening timing conferences and settling the timings, of different stage carriage services. 7. Petitioners and learned Government Pleader have made submissions as to the manner in which the applications will have to be prioritized. It is submitted that the applications for settlement of timings, which have to be dealt with by the Regional Transport Officer would broadly come under the following heads: W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 4 1. Fresh grant of permits 2. Pursuant to variation of permits 3. On applications for revisions for existing timings. 8. It is also admitted by counsel on both sides that the number of applications for fresh grant are quite limited. This may not really be a burden on any office . Major portion of applications relate to the request made for revision of existing timings and settlement of timings consequential upon the grant of varied permits. It is only appropriate that the plea for settlement of timings consequent upon variation of routes be dealt with on a priority, ahead of the applications for revision of existing timings. Therefore, the competent authority may prioritize the applications in the following manner. (1). Settlement of timings relatable to fresh grant of permits. (2) Settlement of timings consequential upon variation of permits (either extension or curtailment as the case may be). (3) Revision of existing timings. Priority may therefore be given to the first category ahead of the second category and the second category ahead of W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 5 the third category. 9. It is only appropriate that the services of Sri.K.N.Gopi, be made available immediately for the purpose of convening timing conferences and dealing with the request for settlement of timings in the manner aforementioned. In other words, till the existing arrears are wiped off, no other duty may be assigned to Sri.K.N.Gopi. This, of course does not mean the existing incumbent in the office of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram shall not take up the aforementioned work as part of his normal statutory duties. 10. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for one of the petitioners in these cases submits that in the case of fresh grant or variation of permits, settlement of timings need not be deferred or be included in the same list of priority, if there are no objections. If there are absolutely objection whatsoever in any particular centre for a fresh grant or grant of permit on variation pursuant to orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the proposal for settlement of timings in relation to such permits should W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 6 be published. If it is found that there are no objections to the proposed timings published in that regard, then it is open to the competent officer to deal with such cases, distinctly from cases where there are objections to the proposed timings, since obviously such objections will have to be considered in a timing conference. The aforementioned directions are applicable to all these cases in general. I now propose to take the writ petitions separately. I dispose of the following writ petitions. WP(C) No.31182/2008: Petitioner was granted a regular permit to operate on the route Melechelari-Feroke-Idimoozhikkal in relation to stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. NoKL-10/P 8943. Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in the issuance of permit. Respondent shall proceed to issue a permit on the basis of Exhibit-P1 decision taken by the RTA and settle the timings including the issue regarding settlement of timings relatable to Exhibit-P1 in a list to be drawn up pursuant to the directions issued herein above. W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 7 Obviously, it will be eligible to dealt with on a date earlier to the presently scheduled date on account of the posting of an Officer for the purpose of expeditiously dealing with such matters. WP(C ) No.33224/2008 Petitioner's complaint is regarding non-settlement of timings in relation to a fresh grant of permit. Fresh date for a timing conference may be issued in relation to this judgment and timings may be settled in relation to the stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-10N/6827 pursuant to Exhibit-P2 going by the list of priority to be drawn up in the manner aforementioned. WP(C)No.19989/2008 Issue raised in this case relates to the request made by the petitioner for revisions of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P2 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 13.3.2008. Petitioner's application may be included in the list of cases to be drawn up pursuant to directions issued herein above under the category of revision of existing timings and it shall be dealt with going W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 8 by the said list of priority. WPC (C) No.31827/2008 Issue raised in this case relates to an application for settlement of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 for a varied permit. The said application may be dealt with in accordance with the directions issued herein above. WP(C) No.30238/2008 The request made in this case relates to settlement of timings pursuant to regular variation granted under Exhibit-P1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there will be no objection from any other operator. If so, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions issued herein above. WP(C) No.35605/2008 Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings may be settled as per the directions issued herein above. W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 9 WP(C) No.34368/2008 Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings may be settled as per the directions issued herein as above. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 10 W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827, 33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008 11