IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1455 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21748/2011 Dated 29/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT -------------- P.L.JOHNSON, PADAMADAN HOUSE, UDAYANAGAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT --------------- 1. JOY ANTONY, AGED 43, S/O.ANTONY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTATT, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MS.MEERA MR.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1456 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1455/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-1 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 04/07/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. Nos.1455 & 1456 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Relief sought for is only fixation of time for operation of the stage carriage owned by the 1st respondent in W.A.No.1455/2011, who is the 2nd respondent in W.A.No.1456/2011. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, who took notice on admission, and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned Government Pleader expressed difficulty of the RTO to settle disputes in the time schedule for operation because so many stage carriages are operating in the same route. Instruction obtained by the learned Government Pleader is to the effect that the RTO has instructed the Inspector to make suggestion in regard to fixation of time for W.A.Nos.1455 & 1456/2011 2 operation of the vehicle of the contesting respondent with reference to the schedule of operation granted to other operators, and on receipt of the report, the RTO proposes to convene a meeting and decide the matter and settle the timings. 4. After hearing both sides and the learned Government Pleader, we feel the difficulty expressed by the RTO is quite genuine because there will be fight among operators for getting schedule of operation during peak hours. We feel one solution to the problem will be to interchange the time schedule on a periodic basis to different operators in the very same route. We, therefore, direct the RTO to keep this in mind and if required he is free to interchange the timings granted to different operators in the same route, so that all the operators get benefit of peak time operation during some period of the year. An equitable distribution of the period by mixing off season could also be considered by the RTO. Of course this applies to those operating exactly in the same W.A.Nos.1455 & 1456/2011 3 route. These Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of directing the RTO to get report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector within a week from now and thereafter settle timings for operation of the vehicle of the contesting respondent after hearing the objectors at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. These Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg