IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH APRIL 2008 / 29TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4106 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- P.S.SHINJITH, PAMPUMKATTIL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHI P.O., THRISSUR 679 531. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. SRI. M.S.SIDDHIQUE, MULAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY P.O.,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9061 OF 2008,THE COURT ON 18/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4106/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE DTD. 14/08/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTION DTD. 3/01/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4106 & 9061 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 18, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the existing operators of stage carriage vehicles. In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.9061/2008 is concerned, he is operating his vehicles on the routes Nedumpura - Pattambi and Chelakkara - Pattambi. The 3rd respondent, the petitioner in WP(C) 4106/08, is operating on the route Thrissur - Pattambi. Ext.P1 is the timings of the 3rd respondent in WP(C) 9061/08 and Exts.P2 and P3 are the timings of the petitioner therein. 2. According to the petitioner in WP(C) 9061/08, the regular permit of the 3rd respondent expired on 30.5.2006 and since then, in view of the pendency of a renewal application submitted by him, he has been operating on the strength of temporary permit issued under sec.87 (1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The complaint against the 3rd respondent is mainly that he has been operating in his route without adhering to the time schedule and in violation of WP(C) 4106 & 9061 of 2008 Page numbers permit conditions. Hence Exts.P4 to P7 complaints were filed before respondents 1 and 2, but however, there has not been any action. In view of this, petitioner has filed WP(C) 247/2008 and the same is pending. While so, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner is operating his services in violation of the permit conditions and filed WP(C) 4106/08. Meanwhile, ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent's application for renewal of his regular permit was considered and by Ext.P9 his permit was renewed. At that stage, seeking to quash Ext.P9 and directing to consider Ext.P7 objection, this writ petition is filed. 3. In WP(C) 4106/08, filed by the 3rd respondent in WP(C) 7061/08, the complaint is almost identical. He would state that the 3rd respondent therein, the petitioner in WP(C) 9061/08, is operating in violation of permit conditions and is seeking a direction to the respondents to take action on Ext.P3 complaint filed by him. 4. Essentially the complaint in these writ petitions is that, the rival operator is operating his vehicle in violation of the permit conditions, particularly without adhering to the time schedule. This WP(C) 4106 & 9061 of 2008 Page numbers is the complaint in Ext.P7 in WP(C) 9061/08 and Ext.P3 in WP(C) 4106/08. Necessarily, if such a complaint is received, it is for the Secretary, RTA to take appropriate action. 5. Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of directing that the Secretary, RTA shall consider and take action on Ext.P7 in WP(C) 9061/08 and Ext.P3 in WP(C) 4106/08. In case he finds merit in the complaint of either of the petitioners, he shall take appropriate action in the matter. Petitioners shall produce copy of this judgment before the Secretary, RTA for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-