IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14274 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SREEKALA, PADATHU HOUSE, P.O.KIZHAKKUMMURI, KAKKODI, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. MR.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14274/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a Stage Carriage Operator, apparently purchased a vehicle with permit from one V.M.Issac operating on the route Kunduparamba - Payyanakkal. Permit is being operated with vehicle KL-11-R-1215. Going by the additional document produced by the petitioner and the affidavit filed in support of I.A.6537/2009, petitioner became the owner of the vehicle and necessary transfer was endorsed in March 2009. Previous operator was operating the vehicle on the set of timings which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was settled approximately three years ago. It is contended that the petitioner realized that there is a clash of timings in relation to his vehicle with another vehicle KL-11-R-6399. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 request for a revision of his own timings. 2. Rule 145(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules W.P.(C).14274/2009 2 reads as follows:- Transport Authorities shall, in deciding whether to grant or refuse additional trips or change of timings, have regard to the following matters, namely:- (i).need for provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public; (ii).Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of routes: provided that whenever rotation of timings is to be enforced, state carriages carrying mails shall be excluded in the public interest, and the rotation shall be enforced only in respect of the other stage carriages on the particular route. 3. It is upto to the transport authority to take a decision on the revision of the existing timings in the W.P.(C).14274/2009 3 interest of public. So also special circumstances will include changes in the railway timings and changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route or variation of route. These factors would justify a revision of the timings under Rule 145(7) of the Rules. Timings of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-R-1215, according to the petitioner, was settled. So also timings of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-R-6399 has also been settled earlier. Existing operators would have had a chance to object to the timings, provided there was a clash of such timings. The mere fact that now it is realised that there is a clash of timings would not constitute sufficient reason to seek a revision of timings under Rule 145 (7). In the result, I do not find any reason to direct the consideration of Ext.P2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are other reasons why a revision of timings becomes necessary. If that be so, it is open to the W.P.(C).14274/2009 4 petitioner to file a fresh application before the second respondent, specifically pointing out the reasons for the revision of the timings in terms of Rule 145(7) of the Rules and then move the authority to get a consideration of the said application. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to do so, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs