IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21162 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.C. SEBASTIAN, VDAKODAN HOUSE, VALATTANJOOR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. P. RAVI, S/O. PERIYA SWAMY, BHAVYA SREE HOUSE, KOTTIL LANE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680 011. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI ABDUL SALAM FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.V. GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21163 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.21162/11 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT RELATING TO BUS NO.KL.48-648 TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE VALAKKAVU-TIRUR ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPLICATION DT.7.1.2011 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.3925/11 DT.8.2.11. EXT.P4: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.C5/1905/2011 DT.22.7.22 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO.KL-8AA-5756. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 21162 & 21163 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are stage carriage operators. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21162 of 2011 challenges Ext.P4 order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. It is the same as Ext.P5 which is challenged in W.P.(C) No. 21163 of 2011. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The second respondent in these writ petitions was operating a stage carriage on the route Kozhikode-Thrissur via Ramanattukara, University, Kolappuram, Kottakkal, Kuttippuram, Edappal and Kunnamkulam as a limited stop ordinary service. As per the time schedule, the second respondent's stage carriage used to leave Kozhikode at 4.12 pm. While matters stood thus, the operator of stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 8 AA/5756 operating on the route Thalassery-Guruvayoor that used to leave Kozhikode at 3.34 pm got the time schedule changed as a result of which a vacant slot arose at 3.34 pm. The second respondent thereupon submitted Ext.P2 representation produced in W.P.(C) No. 21162 of 2011 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.21163 of 2011) before the first respondent wherein he requested the first respondent to allot that time schedule to him. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 3925 of 2011 in this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on WPC Nos.21162 & 21163/2011 2 8.2.2011, which is produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.21162 of 2011, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the second respondent’s application for revision of the time schedule and take an appropriate decision thereon after notice to him and other stage carriage operators who will be affected by its outcome. It was pursuant to the said direction that the impugned order was passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The second respondent was not allotted the time schedule sought by him but another time schedule was allotted to him. 3. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the stage carriage operator who was operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-7T-7353 on the route Kozhikode-Guruvayoor that used to leave Kozhikode at 3.39 pm submitted that the vacant time slot claimed by the second respondent may be allotted to his stage carriage, that the said request was acceptable to all the persons who attended the timing conference including the second respondent that consequently, the time slot allotted to the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-7T-7353 (3.39 pm) fell vacant and it was allotted to the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-11AB-2323 operating on the route Kozhikode-Thrissur which used to leave Kozhikode at 3.44 pm based on the request of that stage carriage operator. It is WPC Nos.21162 & 21163/2011 3 stated that consequently the time slot at 3.44 pm fell vacant and it was allotted to the second respondent herein. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21162 of 2011 is that even assuming that in the timing conference the time schedule of the second respondent's stage carriage and that of two others was changed by mutual agreement, there was no reason why the time schedule of his stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-48-648 operating on the route Kuttippuram-Thrissur should have been changed from 5.19 pm to 5.18 pm. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21163 of 2011 challenges the impugned proceedings on the ground that the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-11AB-2323 operating on the route Kozhikode-Thrissur and stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-7T-7353 operating on the route Kozhikode-Guruvayoor will pass Kuttippuram at 5.27 pm and 5.22 pm respectively thereby adversely affecting the petitioner's stage carriage which departs from Kuttippuram at 5.30 pm. His contention is that the two stage carriages will pass through Kuttippuram 3 minutes and 8 minutes ahead of his service. 5. It is evident from the impugned orders that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21163 of 2011 can have no real grievance. If the second respondent had been given the vacant slot (3.34 pm) instead of 3.45 pm, the second respondent would have been operating the service instead of WPC Nos.21162 & 21163/2011 4 the operator of stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-7T-7353. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that he had participated in the timing conference and objected to the allotment of the vacant slot (3.34 pm) to the operator of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-7T-7353 or the consequential change in the time schedule in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11AB-2323. That apart, the said two operators are not on the party array. Without them on the party array, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21163 of 2011. W.P. (C) No.21163 of 2011 is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. 6. As regards the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21162 of 2011, the only grievance put forward by him is that even assuming that the second respondent's request was liable to be granted there was no reason why the time schedule of his stage carriage should be changed from 5.19 pm to 5.18 pm. That according to me is a matter which the petitioner can challenge by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal can call for the relevant files and ascertain whether the variation of the petitioner's time schedule was warranted in view of the decision taken on the second respondent's application in the timing conference held on 20.7.2011. The period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision is 30 days from the date of the order. The words “date of the order” have been interpreted by a Division WPC Nos.21162 & 21163/2011 5 Bench of this Court in Varghese v. R.T.O.(1984 KLT 1082) as “30 days from the date on which the aggrieved party had actual or constructive knowledge of the impugned order”. In the instant case the impugned order was passed only on 22.7.2011. Even assuming that it was served on the petitioner or the petitioner has the knowledge of it on the same day, the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition will expire only on 21.8.2011. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21162 of 2011 should avail the alternate remedy available to him. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss W.P.(C) No. 21162 of 2011 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in other appropriate proceedings. W.P.(C) No. 21163 of 2011 fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps