IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7816 of 2007(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAFIYA., AGED 36, W/O.P.S.KABEER, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, MANNUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. K.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT KAKKACHIRAYIL, VARIKULAM, KATTILAPOOVAM P.O., AYYANTHOLE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 7816/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.4.3.05. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.17.5.05. P3. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.C9/7135/2005/R. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 35020/05 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R2 DTD.30.8.06. P6. COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DTD.11.9.06. P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.22.9.06 IN MP.NO.1700/06 IN MVARP NO.395/06. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.395/06 DTD.28.12.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.7816 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He has a permit for operating in the route Ayyanthole-Chirakkakadavu, via Thrissur. He submitted an application for variation of the route of the permit by extending the same by a distance of six kilometers from Chirakkakadavu upto a place called Kattilepoovam. The 1st respondent on 17.5.2005, by Ext.P2, granted the deviation by the following order: “Item No.116. Heard. This item was adjourned by the RTA dt. 04.03.05 with direction to the applicant to propose a set of timings without changing the existing trips and timings to Ayyanthole. Now the applicant has produced a set of timings without changing the trips to Ayyanthole. But it is understood that the extension is possible with slight changes in the existing timings. The extension sought is from Chirakkakaode to Kattilappoovam which is an ill served portion. MLA, Ollur and Panchayath President, Madakkathra have represented for the extension. Hence variation Granted (sic) subject to settlement of timings.” 2. The petitioner submitted a set of timings, which is Ext.P3, which was duly notified. When there was delay on the part of the RTA in endorsing the variation and settling timings, the petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 35020/2005, in which, by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to endorse the variation granted as per Ext.P3 on the regular permit of the petitioner after settling the time schedule, if the same has not so far been settled within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Pursuant thereto, 2 a timing conference was convened by the 2nd respondent and by Ext.P5 order, he settled the timings, which was not to the liking of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, against the order settling the timings, who, by Ext.P8 order, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to point out any clash of timings, which alone would entitle him to challenge the timings so settled. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P8 orders in this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2, the RTA held that the extension is possible with slight changes in the existing timings, whereas the 2nd respondent has totally changed the entire timings to the disadvantage of the petitioner. The petitioner would still contend that it is possible to settle the timings without much variation, in so far as it is considering the waiting time at Ayyanthole that the petitioner had requested for the extension and, therefore, practically, there is not much change in the timings, once the waiting time is also duly adjusted. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to Ext.P5 and Ext.P8 from respondents 2 and 3 and quash Ext.P5 and Ext.P8 of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as illegal and without jurisdiction. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to issue the varied permit to the petitioner to operate on the route Ayyanthole- 3 Chirakkakadavu with extension to Kattilepoovam strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 grant made by the 1st respondent by making changes in the existing timings only if it is deemed necessary.” 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent, who is a commuter from Kattilepoovam. 5. The additional 4th respondent would contend that the people residing in the sector Chirakkakadavu-Kattilepoovam have been suffering for quite some time since there is no public transport available between the two points. It was with grate difficulty, after making many many representations that ultimately through the local MLA and the Panchayat President, the people of the locality succeeded in getting at least one operator to conduct service in the said route. Therefore, he would submit that this Court may not totally shut out the chances of the people of that area to have some public transport facility, which has come in the form of extension to the petitioner's permit. 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 7. Primarily I am not inclined to interfere with the orders now passed when the petitioner has to run additional 6 + 6=12 more kilometers for the variation. In view of that extension, naturally except for the first trip upto Chirakkakadavu, all other timings have to be changed. However, I note that by an interim order, this Court had 4 permitted the petitioner to operate on the pre-revised route at the pre- revised timings pending disposal of the writ petition. As a result, the people of the extended route is not benefited by the grant of the extended permit. Only because of the difficulties pointed out by the additional 4th respondent espousing the cause of the people residing in the locality in the extended route, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, I quash the impugned orders and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the timings so that all efforts can be made to see that the people of the extended route also are able to get the benefits of a public transport facility. I also make it clear that even if ultimately a consensus cannot be reached in the matter among the existing operators while re- settling the timings, the 1st respondent shall exercise his powers to compulsorily extend the route to see that the people of the extended route are also able to get the benefit of a public transport facility. The above exercise shall be taken up and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge