IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 35552 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJARAM, MARATH HOUSE, THAZHATHUR POST, CHEERAL, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD. 2. SRI.P.K.SIVARAMAN, POOTHADI HOUSE, NENMEKANNU P.O., CHERAL, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD. ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 35552/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.5.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.1.2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17.9.2009. 2ND RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE PERMIT HAVING NO.P.St.C5/33/00/W DATED 6.4.2000 IN RESPECT OF THIS RESPONDENT'S VEHICLE. EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C5/3220/2000/W DATED 5.4.2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REGARDING TIMING OF THIS RESPONDENT'S VEHICLE. EXT.R2 (c): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35552 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a regular stage carrier operator operating on the route Kallody-Mananthavadi-Sulthan Batheri in respect of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/P 4015. It is stated that the time allotted to the petitioner’s vehicle to leave Mananthavadi as per the time schedule is 2.20 P.M. as per Ext.P1. The vehicle belonging to the second respondent (KL- 12/A 7279) is operating on the route Sulthan Batheri- Mananthavadi. As per the time schedule, the vehicle KL-12/A 7279 was supposed to leave Mananthavady at 2.15 P.M. It is stated that the time schedule in respect of another vehicle, namely, KL-10/A 9500 was revised and at that time, the timing of the vehicle KL-12/A 7279 belonging to the second respondent was also revised. As per the revised timings, the vehicle belonging to the second respondent has to leave Mananthavady at 2.10 P.M. instead of 2.15 P.M. fixed originally. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second W.P.(C) No.35552/ 2009 2 respondent does not stick to the time schedule and that his vehicle leaves Mananthavady only at 2.15 P.M. This leads to unhealthy competition which causes inconvenience to the passengers. It is submitted that such unhealthy competition may result in endangering safety of the public. Pointing out the grievance, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 17.9.2009 before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kalpetta. Ext.P3 is not disposed of. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following : “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs, order or direction to the respondent, Secretary, RTA to consider Ext.P3 request of the petitioner and take immediate steps so that the service operated by the second respondent with the vehicle KL-12/A 7279 on the route Sulthanbatheri - Manathavadi departs Mananthavadi only at 2.10 P.M. as per his revised time sheet and not as per the old time sheet. W.P.(C) No.35552/ 2009 3 ii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that he is not aware of the change of timing from 2.15 P.M. to 2.10 P.M. It is stated that Ext.P2 as per which it is alleged that the time was changed was not known to him and no notice was issued to him in that proceeding. It is alleged that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P2 order dated 17.1.2002 by which the time was revised from 2.15 P.M. to 2.10 P.M. It is also pointed out by the second respondent that Ext.P3 request was made only in 2009 while Ext.P2 order was passed in 2002. It is also pointed out that all throughout the second respondent’s vehicle was leaving Mananthavady at the time fixed originally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Regional Transport Authority has not passed any orders on Ext.P3, it is only proper to direct the first respondent (Regional Transport Authority) to dispose of Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the second W.P.(C) No.35552/ 2009 4 respondent. Ext.P3 shall be disposed of, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl