IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21135 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THRISSUR DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, WEST PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY ANTO FRINCIS. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21135 of 2007(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.2007 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE FEDERATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th September, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “a. Call for the records leading to Ext. P1 and quash the same by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; b) issue any other such writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in order to meet the ends of justice on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case; and c) award the costs of this case to the petitioner. ” 2. The case of the petitioner, who is an Association of Bus Operators in Thrissur district and the District Level Unit of All Kerala State Private Bus Operators Federation, is that Ext. P1 W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 2 which is under challenge in this writ petition, has been issued in violation of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. As per Ext.P1 issued by the first respondent/RTA, certain guidelines were prescribed to conduct Timing Conference of Stage Carriage Permits. The stipulations thereunder are as follows: “1. Hereafter timing objection of permit holders having at least 25% of his route overlapping with new service will be entertained. 2. While settling timing objections, the timings of new service will be fixed in the middle of the maximum time gap. 3. Hereafter timing objections are to be filed in the RTA meeting only and such objectors will be called for the timing conference while settling the timing of new se vice. 4. While filing the timing objection, the objector shall produce a copy of his timings to verify the clash, if any. 5. The objector should specify the exact time of clash while filing the objection. W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 3 6. The objector himself or any one of the authorised person shall be permitted to attend the timing conference.” 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescription in Ext. P1 to submit the objections directly to the RTA instead of the second respondent, makes the procedure cumbersome. It is also stated that the stipulation in Ext. P1 holding that the objections of the permit holders having atleast 25% of his route overlapping with new service alone will be entertained is contrary to the directions of this Court that the existing operators have a right to be heard with regard to allotment of time schedule. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Inspite of the vague averment in the writ petition and Ground B as to the alleged violation of Section 71 of the M.V.Act and Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, in what way the same is violative, is not brought to the notice of this Court, with specific reference to the said provisions of law. It is W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 4 also relevant to note that no specific instance of such violation has been brought on record, as the writ petition has been filed by an Association and no individual has come forward with any such specific grievance, if anybody is actually aggrieved. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Anoj Abraham vs. Regional Transport Authority (2006(4) KLT 691) stating that the issue is squarely covered by the said decision. It was a case where the application for temporary permit in the concerned route for a period of '20' days was considered and permit was granted only for a period of 'five' days in terms of Clause.4 of Ext. P2 Circular therein, issued by the State Transport Authority, stipulating that temporary permits under Section 87(1)(c) of the M.V. Act shall be granted only for a period not exceeding 'five' days at a time. The source of power to have issued such Circular, was referred to Section 68(3) and (4) of the M.V. Act. After considering the relevant provisions of law, this Court held that the power under Section 68(3) and (4) of the M.V. Act did not confer any power on the W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 5 State Transport Authority, so as to mitigate the power conferred on the RTA to issue temporary permits under Section 87(1)(c) for a period not exceeding 'four months', depending upon the merit involved in each case and that such power under Section 68(3) and (4) could only be in respect of the administrative function. The power of the RTA with regard to issuance of temporary permits under Section 87(1)(c) was held as a quasi judicial one, which could not have been intercepted by the State Transport Authority by issuing any such Circular. Accordingly, Clause.4 of Ext.P2 Circular therein was held as ultra vires of and unauthorised by the provisions of the M.V. Act, which was set aside . The factual position in the said case differs in toto from the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and hence the said decision sought to be relied on by the petitioner is not an authority to accede to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 7. Though the writ petition was admitted on 18.07.2007 and is pending for more than four years, the matter was not moved thereafter. Obviously, no interim order was passed by this W.P.(C) No.21135 OF 2007 6 court staying the operation of Ext.P1. In the above circumstance, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for interference; more so when the alleged violation is not substantiated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however making it clear that this will not bar the way of the operators concerned to point out specific instances of violation, if any and to seek for redressal of grievances, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk