IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28734 of 2011(N) --------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- P.T.ANIYANKUNJU, PUTHENVEETIL AJI NIVAS, COLLECTORATE PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. P.R. SURENDRAN, SANTHI BHAVAN VELANILAM PO, MUNDAKKAYAM 686 513. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED *3. K.N. SOMAN, KULANGARETH HOUSE, RPC P.O., ERUMELY. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2011 IN I.A NO. 17494/2011. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 28734 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE RTA (REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY), KOTTAYAM HELD ON 17.9.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RTA (REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY), KOTTAYAM DATED 17.9.2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.11 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MVI, PALA DATED 18.10.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 15.09.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 28734 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for a fresh stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage on route Elamkadu Top-Pampavalley via. Elamkadu, Yenthayar, Koottickal, Mundakayam, Varikani, Karinilam, Murikkumvayal, Punchavayal, 504 Colony, Mangapetta, Kuzhimavu, Kalakettty, Azhutha and Mookenpetty. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam that met on 17.09.2011 resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner thereafter produced the currents records of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 05 Z 9871. He also submitted a set of timings. The second respondent, who is operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-34/A 3999 on the route 504 Colony - Erumeli Via. Mundakkayam, Kuzhimavu, Pampavally, covering a portion of the route, Elamkadu Top - Pampavalley submitted Ext.P3 application dated 15.9.2011 for variation of the time schedule of his stage carriage. The petitioner and the third respondent had requested for allotment of the same set of timings. The instant writ WP(C)No. 28734 of 2011 -2- petition is filed for an order directing the first respondent to refrain from allotting the time schedule applied for by the petitioner, to the second respondent's stage carriage. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to settle the timings and issue the permit in implementation of Ext.P2 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam. After the writ petition was filed the additional third respondent sought impleadment by filing I.A.No.17494 of 2011 contending that the second respondent has transferred his stage carriage to him and that the transfer proceeding are in progress. On that ground he claims to be a person interested in the subject matter of this writ petition. 2. I heard Sri.P.Deepak , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.G.Gopakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. In view of the fact that the second respondent is no longer interested in the subject matter of this writ petition, going by the case set out by the third respondent, I am of the opinion that notice need not be issued to him and he need not be heard before orders are passed in this writ petition. The grievance voiced by the WP(C)No. 28734 of 2011 -3- petitioner is that the vacant times now available should be allotted to his stage carriage. On the other hand, the third respondent who climes to be a person interested in the stage carriage, that was formerly being operated by the second respondent, wants a particular time schedule to be allotted to his stage carriage. In my opinion, these are all matters which the first respondent should take into account while settling the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage or while considering the application stated to have been made by the second respondent for revision of the time schedule of his stage carriage, which presently is being run by the third respondent. The mere fact that two stage carriage operators have sought the same time schedule on a portion of the route is not a reason to delay the issue of the permit pursuant to the grant in favour of the petitioner. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with direction to the first respondent to hold a timing conference with notice to the petitioner, the third respondent and other stage carriage operators operating stage carriage services on the route in question namely Elamkadu Top - Pampavalley, to settle the timings and issue the permit in implementation of Ext.P2 WP(C)No. 28734 of 2011 -4- proceedings expeditiously, and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy this judgment before the first respondent. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge.