IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 18260 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.S.SIDDIQUE, AGED 42, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MULACKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR. 2. P.M.ALI, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.RAVINDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.18260/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.T.A., PALAKKAD WITH TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF KL-8/8649 REPLACED BY KL-13/A.5223 DT.24.1.2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF KL-10/A.5203 DT.27.8.2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22.8.2003 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.6.8.2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.16.11.2004. EXT.P6: COPYOF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.35929/2004 DT.16.2.2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.3.3.2005. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.21.3.2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.16870/2005 DT.30.6.2005. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN C.C.C.NO.1512/2005 DT.3.1.2006. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (IN CHARGE) IN C.C.C.NO.1512/2005 DT.4.2.2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.C.C.NO.1512/2005 DT.10.3.2006. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C.NO.1512/2005 DT.27.3.2006. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE DT.22.8.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS ISSUED ON 3.6.06. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18260 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Chelakkara-Pattambi via., Killimangalam, Pynkulam, Cheruthurthy, Shornur, Kulappully and Ongalloor. Ext.P1 is the time schedule issued to the petitioner's vehicle. The 2nd respondent is operating on the route Trichur-Chelakkara via., Shornur, Pynkulam and Kulappully. Ext.P2 is his time schedule. After sometime, the Secretary, R.T.A. issued Ext.P3 proceedings purporting to revise the time schedule of the 2nd respondent as per Circular 3/97. The petitioner submits the said revised time schedule was not implemented pursuant to the general directions issued by the Secretary. But, the 2nd respondent, armed with two time schedules, is operating his service according to his convenience. Occasionally, he followed Ext.P2 and on other occasions he followed Ext.P3. In the above context, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16870/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: W.P.(C) No.18260/2008 2 “2. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent also. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to cause an inspection on the route, deploying the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and find out whether the allegation of the petitioner contained in Ext.P9 is correct or not. Needless to say, if his allegation is found to be correct, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law against the 2nd respondent.” 2. Alleging that the above direction of this Court was not being complied with, contempt proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Secretary, R.T.A. The said proceeding was closed as per Ext.P13 order, on noticing that effective steps have been taken by the Secretary, R.T.A. to ensure that the 2nd respondent was operating as per Ext.P2. Again, the petitioner noticed that the 2nd respondent is operating his vehicle deviating from the time schedule granted as per Ext.P2. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the time schedule of the 2nd respondent's vehicle. He has been served with Ext.P14, which is a copy of Ext.P3. In the above background this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. W.P.(C) No.18260/2008 3 3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the said respondent is operating his vehicle as per Ext.P2. He intends to operate only as per the said time schedule. He has no intention to operate his vehicle according to Ext.P3. The said submission is recorded. The 1st respondent is directed to cancel Ext.P3, so that, there may not be any further dispute alleging the operation based on Ext.P3 time schedule by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps