IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9043 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.ALEX, THUNDUPARAMBAIL HOUSE, ANAPUZHA, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR- 680001. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NOS.9072/2011 & 9727/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9043/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 6.11.2010 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO.234/2010 DT. 7.2.2010 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 9043, 9072 & 9727 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are stage carriage operators operating stage carriages on various routes in Thrissur District. They applied for reduction of running time and consequential changes in the time schedule by submitting separate applications. Initially the applications were rejected by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Thrissur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing separate revision petitions. The revision petitions were allowed and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority was directed to reconsider the applications. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has declined to pass orders pursuant to the directions issued by the Regional Transport Authority in view of the ensuing elections. In this writ petition the petitioners seek a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Thrissur to pass revised orders on the applications submitted by them for reduction of the running time and consequential changes in the time schedule. 2. I heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the Election Commission. The learned WPC Nos.9043, 9072 & 9727/2011 2 standing counsel appearing for the Election Commission submitted that the Chief Electoral Officer has issued a communication dated 9.3.2011 to all District Collectors to the effect that the permission of the Chief Electoral Officer need be obtained only for issuing new permits and that even in respect of applications for issuance of new permits if any direction from the courts exists, the same may also be mentioned in the request for permission, so that the directions of the Courts are not violated. The learned standing counsel also made available a copy of the said communication for perusal and it reads as follows:- “In response to the clarification whether the Regional Transport Authority Board Meetings can be conducted, the following instructions are issued: The Regional Transport Authority Board Meetings can be conducted, but for issuance of new permits, prior permissions must be obtained from Chief Electoral Officer clearly stating the need for such permits, case by case. If the authorities entertain any doubt suo moto or otherwise whether any application for issuance and renewal of permits may have the effect of breach of the provision of Model Code of Conduct, the same may also be referred to this office. If any court direction exists in respect of such applications the same may also specifically mentioned so that the directions of Courts are not violated.” 3. In the instant case, what the petitioners seek is only a revision of the time schedule and therefore the direction issued by the Chief Electoral Officer cannot stand in the way of the respondents from revising the time schedule. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the applications submitted by WPC Nos.9043, 9072 & 9727/2011 3 the petitioners for revision of timings and pass appropriate orders thereon within three weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a copy of this judgment before him. Needless to say, the first respondent shall issue notice to and afford the petitioners and other stage carriage operators who would be affected by the change of timings sought by the petitioners, an opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps