IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11741 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.R.MANOHARAN, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. MR.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SHRI.LAL JOHN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PERINGALA, KUMARAPURAM. ADDL. R4 . BIJU THOMAS, PULIMTHOTTIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R5. SIBI JOHN, PULINGAPALLIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R6. TOMY CHANDY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY, NEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. ADD. R4 TO R6 IMPELADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6.6.2008 IN I.A. 6606/08. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DILIP MOHAN ADVS. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 MR.DINESH MENON FOR ADDL.R4 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11741 of 2007(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED ON 26.2.1996 BY WHICH THE PETITIONER IS OPERATING Ext.P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1.10.2004. Ext.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, RTA DATED 14.2.2005. Ext.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.6.2006 REVISING THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S TIMINGS OF KOTTAYAM DEPARTURE TO 10.10 A.M. Ext.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DATED 22.11.2006 IN M.V.A.R.P. NO. 548/2006. Ext.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.3.2007. Ext.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2007 IN M.V.A..R.P NO. 548/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF SC KL-5 T6132. Ext.R5(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF SC KL-35 5334 AND KL- 35 2851. Ext.R6(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF SC KL-36 374. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 11741 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a regular permit holder operating in the route Ernakulam-Kottayam. The 3rd respondent is another permit holder operating in the route Ernakulam- Kottayam as a limited stop ordinary service. While both were operating in accordance with the timings alloted to them, the 3rd respondent wanted a change of his timings. Against orders in this regard, he filed MVARP No. 237/04 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and by judgment dated 6.11.2004 the Tribunal directed the Secretary, RTA to consider his grievances. Pursuant thereto the RTA passed Ext.P3 whereby the departure time of the 3rd respondent's service from Kottayam was changed from 9.35 a.m. to 10.07 a.m. Against that order, the petitioner filed MVARP No. 43 of 2005 objecting to the rate of running time granted to the 3rd respondent's service and the Tribunal dismissed that R.P. As such the timings were confirmed, in so far as, no party took up the matter further. While so, the 3rd respondent again filed a W.P(C) No. 11741 of 2007 -2- request for change of his departure time from Kottayam as 10 a.m. instead of 10.07 a.m. This was accepted by Ext.P4 order. Against Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed MVARP No. 548/2006 before the Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revision petition on the ground that Ext.P4 order was passed pursuant to orders of this court in W.P(C) No. 27154 of 2005 and that there were change of circumstances warranting the change of timings. The order of the Tribunal is produced as Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is under challenge before me. The challenge is on several grounds. That according to the petitioner, order of the Tribunal is against two Division Bench decisions of this court in Manu Kurikkal v. RTA Malappuram and Others 1999(2) KLJ 461 and P.K.Transport v. Calicut-Wynad Motor Service (Pvt) Ltd. and others 1967 KLT 650. It is further contended that the High Court only directed to consider the representation filed by the 3rd respondent and settled timings is cannot be frequently changed at the instance of one particular operator, that too to the disadvantage of others. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent supporting Ext.P7 order. W.P(C) No. 11741 of 2007 -3- 3. This writ petition came up on for hearing on 29.7.2009. On that day counsel for the petitioner was not present. The counsel for the respondent was. I enquired with the counsel for the 3rd respondent as to what was the provocation for filing W.P (C) No. 27154 of 2005 and as to whether he had disclosed in that writ petition the previous history of the case regarding the earlier two revision petitions. He asserted that he had stated all those facts in the writ petition. Accordingly I directed that the Judge's papers in that writ petition be posted along with this writ petition. The matter came up yesterday and yesterday both the counsel were absent. Therefore I posted the writ petition to today. I perused the memorandum of writ petition in W.P(C) No. 27154 of 2005. There is absolutely no mention of the history of the case particularly the earlier two revision petitions. What he had stated in that writ petition was that he had filed Ext.P1 representation for change of timings and that may be directed to be considered. That being so the 3rd respondent obtained the direction in that writ petition suppressing the fact that the timings were changed twice at his instance. 4. It is a constant practice among the stage carriage W.P(C) No. 11741 of 2007 -4- operators to file petitions before this court seeking a direction to consider the petitions for change of timings even when the timings has been settled only recently, which practice is to be discouraged. The operators cannot seek resettlement of timings in a way advantageous to them frequently, when it is found that the timings are not to there best advantage. That cannot be permitted especially when the timings have been settled after considering objections of all parties in a timing conference. Here is a case where the 3rd respondent had already obtained a revision of his timings twice. Without disclosing those facts and the facts that even in respect of settlement of those timings the petitioner had filed two revision petitions, he again approached this court for a direction to dispose of his fresh application for revision of timings and persuaded this court to pass an order in his favour directing consideration of his application for revision of timings a 3rd time. I am of opinion that this amounts to abuse of processes of this court in so far as the timings have been fixed twice in favour of the 3rd respondent. On 14.2.2005, by Ext.P3, the timings of the respondent were settled the second time. He filed the present application for revision of timings on 30.7.2005. W.P(C) No. 11741 of 2007 -5- Despite the same, the tribunal held that there was change of circumstances. I am not at all satisfied that the finding in Ext.P7 that there were changes of circumstances for seeking revision of timings. In the above circumstances, Ext.P7 is clearly vitiated. Accordingly Ext.P7 is quashed. Timings of the 3rd respondent would be restored as in Ext.P3. On account of the conduct of the 3rd respondent detailed above, I am inclined to direct him to pay exemplary cost. He shall pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as cost to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs