IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 26116 of 2006(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.K.SHOUKATH ALI, SAGAVU TRAVELS, KIZHUPPILLIKARA, THRISUR REPRESENTD BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.GOPINATHAN, NECHIKOTE HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUPILLIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. P.SAJEEVAN, PUTHUR HOUSE, THANISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA, KIZHUTHANI. BY ADV. MR.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26116/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 19.10.05 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN M.V.A.A. NO.718/05 DT. 23.2.06. P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 10.7.06. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT GRANTING VARIATION WITHOUT CHANGING THE EXISTING TIMINGS AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED BY WAY OF CIRCULATION UNDER RULE 130 OF THE K.M.V. RULES DT. NIL. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 21.7.06 PERMITTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO OPERATE ON THE VARIED ROUTE WITHOUT SETTLEMENT OF TIMING ON THE BASIS OF EXT.P3 AND P5. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 26116 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings passed by the first respondent pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal preferred by the third respondent for route variation was allowed, subject to the condition that there shall be no change in timings. The petitioner contends that by virtue of the above stipulation, there is substantial variation in the gap with regard to the operation of the concerned stage carriages which in turn has adversely affected the rights and interests of the petitioner. 2. Heard both the sides including the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the second respondent. It is seen that the application for variation of the route submitted by the 3rd respondent without any change in existing timings, however was rejected by the first respondent stating that as the enquiry W.P.(C) No. 26116 OF 2006 2 revealed that several existing timings were seen changed and that it would affect the existing travelling facility of the public, especially students, as borne by Ext.P2. 3. On challenging Ext.P2 proceedings, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P3, set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent and allowed variation, on condition that it shall be even without a slight change in the timing of the trips on the existing sector. Of course, while passing the said order, the adverse circumstances likely to be resulted to the public at large particularly the students community had been taken into account. But at the same time, it has to be noted that the consequences/impact caused to the other operators, who are operating on the route was omitted to be considered, as no such operators were there in the party array at the relevant time. Pursuant to Ext. P3 order, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 proceedings and Ext.P6 consequential order allowing route variation without any change in timings, in compliance with the directions given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which made the petitioner aggrieved as highlighted in the Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No. 26116 OF 2006 3 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is felt very much necessary to have a 'timing conference' to be convened by the first respondent giving opportunity to all the parties concerned before finalising the route variation allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as per Ext. P2. This is more so, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the proviso to Rule 212 (3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the first respondent is hereby directed to convene a 'timing conference' and the request for variation submitted by the 3rd respondent shall be considered and finalised after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Proceedings in this regard shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that the third respondent, who is operating in the concerned route on the basis of Ext.P5 and P6 proceedings issued by the first respondent will be permitted to operate on a provisional basis till final orders are passed by the first respondent as directed herein before. W.P.(C) No. 26116 OF 2006 4 The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk