IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29203 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAPHAEL, S/O. MATHEW, PORATHOOKARAN HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED *2. P.M. INASU, PORATHUKARAN HOUSE MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA, THRISSUR. * ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.11.2011 IN IA NO. 18108/2011 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 29203/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT564 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA.NO.312/2010 DATED 9.2.2011. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTGHORITY, THRISSUR DATED 8.8.2011 GRANTING VARIATION OF PERMIT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT. R2(a) COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE IMPLEADING PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITIONER DATED 13.06.2008 EXT. R2(b) COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.R.P.No. 300/2008 DATED 15.11.2008 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29203 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Chimmini Dam-Ayyanthole on the strength of a regular permit. He applied for variation of the permit by curtailment of the morning and evening trip from Palappilly to Chimmini Dam and extension of the service from Varandarappilly to Karikulam. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur that met on 13.9.2010 rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 9.2.2011 after notice to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and the respondent herein, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant curtailment of the morning trip from Varandarappilly to Chimmini Dam and the extension to Karikulam, as applied for by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, WPC No.29203/2011 2 the Regional Transport Authority passed Ext.P2 order formally granting the variation subject to settlement of timings. This writ petition is filed contending that though several months have passed after Ext.P1 judgment was delivered and more than three months have passed after Ext.P2 decision was taken, till date, the time schedule has not been settled and the variation endorsed on the original of the permit. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to issue the varied permit in implementation of Ext.P2 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority after settling the timings within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The additional second respondent is a stage carriage operator who is operating a service on the route Palappilly- Thrissur. It appears, he and the petitioner herein had jointly filed Ext.R2(a) application dated 13.6.2008 for revision of the time schedules of their respective stage carriages on a portion of the route, which is common to both. The said application was rejected by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. The additional second respondent thereupon filed a revision petition WPC No.29203/2011 3 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner herein was the third respondent therein. By Ext.R2(b) order passed on 15.11.2008 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to reconsider the application after giving the affected operators an opportunity of being heard. The additional second respondent submits that when the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage is settled, the application which was the subject matter of Ext.R2(b) order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam should also be considered. 3. I heard Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.Prasad Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the additional second respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that though the petitioner's application for variation of the permit was initially dismissed, it has now been WPC No.29203/2011 4 granted by Ext.P2 order dated 8.8.2011. Ext.P2 order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P1 order dated 9.2.2011. More than three months have passed after Ext.P2 order was passed. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should settle the timings and issue the varied permit in accordance with Ext.P2 proceedings expeditiously. The materials on record also disclose that the petitioner and the second respondent had filed an application for revision of the time schedule of their respective stage carriages on a portion of the route. The said application was initially rejected but it has now been directed to be reconsidered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext.R2(b) order. The grievance voiced by the additional second respondent is that though more than three years have passed thereafter, the direction issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.R2(b) order has not been complied with. It is stated that unless the said direction is complied with at least now when the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage is being revised, the additional second WPC No.29203/2011 5 respondent will be put to serious prejudice. In my opinion, in order to avoid any future conflict and disputes between the parties, it is only desirable that the application, which was the subject matter of Ext.R2(b) order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, should also be considered by the first respondent when he holds a timing conference to settle the time schedule of the petitioner's stage carriage pursuant to the variation granted in his favour, if that application is still pending. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to settle the timings and issue the varied permit in implementation of Ext.P2 proceedings after holding a timing conference with notice to the petitioner, the additional second respondent and other stage carriage operators who would be affected by the change of timings. While settling the timings of the petitioner's stage carriage for the purpose of issuing the varied permit, the respondent shall also take up for consideration the application submitted by the additional second respondent, which was the subject matter of Ext.R2(b) order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and take an appropriate WPC No.29203/2011 6 decision thereon, if till date final orders have not been passed on that application . The entire exercise shall be completed and the variation endorsed within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.29203/2011 7