IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27874 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.B.BENEESH, S/O. BALAN, AGED 32 YEARS, PONATH HOUSE, AZHICODE, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. G.P. SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27874 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He was not the original permit holder. He got the permit by transfer from one P.I.Nazar, which was issued for stage carriage No.KL 10/F 5562. That vehicle was replaced by stage carriage No. KL-10/L 6954. The original permit was valid for the period from 3.5.2001 to 2.5.2006. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was operating the stage carriage as per Ext.P3 timings, which was also the timings adhered to by his predecessor. The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 was torn up due to efflux of time and for keeping an authenticated copy of the same, he applied for a certified copy. However, the respondent took the view that the time schedule that has to be adhered to by the petitioner is Ext.P4 and not Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that there is some practical difficulty in adhering to Ext.P4 timings. In view of the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner should adhere to Ext.P4 timings, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 petition before the respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. From Ext.P4 I find that the same was issued pursuant to a 2 judgment of this court dated 1.11.2001 in O.P.No. 32977/2001. Therefore, I called for that judgment. From that judgment I find that the petitioner's predecessor, Sri.P.I.Nazar, filed the original petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider a request for revision of his timings. Therefore, it is evident that the predecessor of the petitioner himself had got Ext.P3 revised by getting a direction from this court in O.P.No. 32977/2001 pursuant to which only Ext.P4 timings has been issued. That being so, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that Ext.P4 timings are not binding on him. Even though O.P.No. 32977/2001 is specifically mentioned in Ext.P4, the petitioner did not take the trouble of obtaining a copy of the same and producing the same in this writ petition. In fact in the writ petition there is no reference to the same. On the other hand, in the writ petition the petitioner's contention is that he was totally unaware of Ext.P4. But that is not what he states in Ext.P5 representation. Therein he admits that there was a timing conference on 4.12.2001, in which, Ext.P4 timings were settled. His contention therein is that he does not accept the same. If he does not accept the same, he should have challenged the same. Without doing that, he cannot say that he will operate only as per Ext.P3 which has been replaced by Ext.P4 that too at the instance of his predecessor. In Ext.P5 the petitioner himself states thus: 3 “I am submitting the following for kind consideration and necessary orders. I am the registered owner of SC KL-10/L.6954 operating on regular permit on the route Azhicode - Thriprayer - Pantheerampala. As per Order No.G/30044/2001/R dated 27.4.2001, a set of timings had been issued to my bus and the service was and is being conducted as per those timings. On 4.12.2001 another timing conference was conducted for resettling the timings of my bus. Request was made for a slight change in the existing departure time 4.45 P.M. from Azhikode. The Hon'ble STAT, Ernakulam, and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed to effect the slight change sought for by me. But at the timing conference all the timings after 4.45 PM from Azhikode were changed. Then I stated at the timing conference that I am not accepting the timings settled and made the request to conduct service as per the timings originally issued. I also made this request in writing also. On the basis of this, I am operating service with the timings originally issued. Now, on my application, certified copy of the timing proceedings with the timings settled on 4.12.2001 has been issued, wherein it is stated that those are the present settled timings of my bus. I have stated orally and in writing that I am not accepting the timings settled on 4.12.2001, even then those timings are in the office records as the timings of my bus. Hence I request that the timings settled as per order No.C4/16456/01 dated 4.12.2001 in respect of my SC KL-10/L.6954 operating on the route Azhicode-Thriprayar - Pantheerampala may be cancelled. I may be allowed to continue operation of my bus on this route with the set of timings originally issued.” Therefore, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has made averments in the writ petition contrary to his own statements in Ext.P4.. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 4