IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30461 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BOBY GEORGE,11/211,PARAKKA HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECERTARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30461/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXISTING TIMINGS VEHICLE NO.KL-10/S 7542 EXT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER TO REVISE HIS OWN TIMING DATED 20.8.2011. EXT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RTA PROCEEDINGS WITH TIMINGS DATED 15.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30461 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam revising of the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Ezhattumugham-Angamaly on the strength of a regular permit. The time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage was settled as per proceedings dated 30.8.2006. Ext.P1 is a copy of the time schedule settled as per that order. It appears another stage carriage operator had filed a revision petition M.V.A.R.P. No.220 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and in that revision petition, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Ernakulam to reset the timings of the revision petitioner's service after affording all the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner WPC No. 30461/2011 2 had in the meanwhile submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 20.8.2011 before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam seeking a revision of the time schedule of his stage carriage. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 23342 of 2011 in this court. By judgment delivered on 29.8.2011 in W.P.(C) No.23342 of 2011, this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider Ext.P2 petition and take an appropriate decision thereon, if it has been received and is pending, expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him after notice to and affording the petitioner and other stage carriage operators who will be affected by the outcome of Ext.P2 an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant thereto the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority held a timing conference on 14.10.2011 and passed Ext.P3 proceedings dated 15.10.2011 revising the time schedule of the petitioner’s stage carriage. Hence this writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that before Ext.P3 order was passed, the request made by him in WPC No. 30461/2011 3 Ext.P2 representation which was directed to be considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23342 of 2011 was not taken note of or considered. It is also stated that the petitioner was not put on notice before Ext.P3 order was passed and the statement in the order that the petitioner was heard is factually incorrect. 4. Ext.P3 order was passed on 15.10.2011 and a copy thereof was signed for communication to the petitioner on 18.10.2011. Under section 90 of the Motor vehicles Act the petitioner can challenge Ext.P3 order by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision petition is 30 days from the date of communication of a copy of the order. As Ext.P3 order was signed for communication on 18.10.2011, as on today the period of limitation has not expired. In my opinion, the grounds which the petitioner has raised in the instant writ petition can be raised by him in the revision petition to be filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal can call for the records, pursue the same, hear the parties and pass an order on the merits. Thus WPC No. 30461/2011 4 the petitioner has got an effective and meaningful remedy. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke the alternate remedy available to him instead of straight away invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition leaving open the petitioner’s contentions and reserving liberty with him to challenge Ext.P3 in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No. 30461/2011 5