IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 268 of 2009(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- NARAYANAN, THALIKKAL HOUSE, EDAPPAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER - R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 268 / 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF KL 10 L 2767. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-7 AH 8994. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/08/2008. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN MVARP NO. 389/08. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.389/08 DATED 26/11/2008. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.368/08 DATED 28/10/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.268 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Consequent on variation of permit granted in petitioner’s favour, Exhibit P1 timings were also varied and Exhibit P3 is the proceedings. In the timings thus resettled, petitioner is more aggrieved about his departure time form Changaramkulam, which is now fixed at 9.21 a.m. and reaching Althara at 9.51 a.m. Referring Exhibit P1 proceedings of the 3rd respondent, petitioner submits that stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-10 L 2767 is departing Changaramkulam at 9.20 a.m. It is also stated that while he has to depart from Althara at 9.53 a.m, stage carriage KL-7 AH 8994 is departing at 9.52 am, giving a time gap of only one minute in the aforesaid sector. Petitioner, filed M.V.A.R.P 389 of 2008 before the Tribunal. In the memorandum of revision he has made following averments. “ The departure time form Changaramkulam is given as 9.21, that is to proceed to Althara, a place 8 k.m away. The service prior to the petitioner’s service is one minute ahead, which is at 9.20. To W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009 2 substantiate the same, the true copy of the proceeding of stage carriage KL-10 L 2767 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P1. The service after 9.20 is at 9.35. So, petitioner could have been given a time in between 9.20 and 9.35 and not to force the petitioner to operate just one minute's interval. Same is the case as to the return trip. The return trip departs from Althara at 9.53, which is just one minute ahead of stage carriage KL-7 AH 8994. To substantiate the same, the true copy of the time schedule of KL-7 AH 8994 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P2. The next service is at 10.15. When there is a gap of 23 minutes, and the gap being unchallenged, petitioner does not know as to why he is forced to operate in this manner. Petitioner’s limited prayer is for a better time gap between the petitioner’s service as well as that of other services on the route in question. The proposal to increase the time gap will not in any way cause any inconvenience W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009 3 to any of the existing permit holders.” 2. The Tribunal, heard the petitioner and considered the revision, but however, dismissed the same by Exhibit P5 on the ground that the petitioner has no case that there is any violation of the principles of natural justice or non-observance of the statutory requirements. The Tribunal also held that in a well served or over saturated sector, it is quite natural that one may not get enough time gap for his service. 3. However, in the light of the factual averments made, a reading of Exhibit P5 shows that the Tribunal has not adverted the factual averments made by the petitioner in the memorandum of revision petition as extracted above where he is rely on Exhibits P1 and P2 also. This shows that the Tribunal has not properly considered the grievance of the petitioner. 4. In order to enable the petitioner to redress his grievance concerned, I feel that it is appropriate that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider Exhibit P3 to the extent petitioner is aggrieved as stated above. Therefore, I set aside Exhibits P3 and P5 and writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009 4 (1)Since the petitioner is operating on the strength of Exhibit P3 proceedings, I direct that status quo as on date in so far as Exhibit P3, will be maintained for another three months. (2)In the meanwhile, Secretary R.T.A. shall reconsider Exhibit P3 to the extent petitioner is departing from Changaramkulam at 9.21 a.m. and from Althara at 9.53 a.m, with notice to all concerned and if necessary pass fresh proceedings revising the timings of the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm