IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10615 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BIJU THOMAS, PULINTHOTTIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABRAHAM THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KALLARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SRI.JOY SEBASTIAN, KAVALAKKATTU HOUSE, EZHACHERRY P.O, PALA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM, R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10615/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE TIMING NOTICE DTD. 25/02/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN M V A R P NO.266/09 DTD. 06/02/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16/03/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/03/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.9C).NO.10615/2010 DTD. 29/03/2010. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.37638/2010 DTD. 22/02/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10615 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Ernakulam – Mundakkayam on the strength of a regular permit. Ext.P1 is a copy thereof. Ext.P2 is the proceedings issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam on 19.9.2007 settling the time schedule in respect of the petitioner's stage carriage. Third respondent is another stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Ernakulam- Mundakkayam on the strength of a regular permit issued in the year 1998. The time schedule in respect of that stage carriage was settled on 28.3.1998. In the year 2009, the third respondent moved for revision of timings on account of introduction of other services on the routes/sectors thereof and also due to the fact that the time schedule in respect of other stage carriages was fixed on the basis that stage carriage would cover a distance of 1 km. in two minutes. The petitioner alleges that in his case the time schedule was fixed on the basis that his stage carriage would cover one kilometer in 2.25 minutes. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam that met on 29.10.2010 considered the said request and also considered the W.P.(C) No.10615 of 2010 2 objections received from two other stage carriage operators and called for a report from the field officer. The field officer who submitted the report recommended that the running time of all vehicles may be standardised by fixing 2 minutes as the running time per kilometer. A timing conference was thereafter held on 10.3.2010 but the time schedule was not settled and the meeting was adjourned. The third respondent herein thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.37638 of 2010 in this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment delivered on 22.2.2011, after notice to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, with a direction to the said officer to revise the time schedule of the third respondent is stage carriage so as to bring about parity of running time between various stage carriage operators operating on the route. This Court also directed that the time schedule shall be settled within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. This writ petition is filed contending that as a person who has objected to the request made by the third respondent for revision of timings and reduction of running time, the petitioner's objection also may be directed to be considered. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the third W.P.(C) No.10615 of 2010 3 respondent submitted that the third respondent has no objection to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority considering the objections that the petitioner may have to the proposed time schedule, while taking a decision pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court. In the light of the said submission, the petitioner cannot have any subsisting grievance. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the objections that the petitioner may raise with regard to the proposed time schedule while taking a decision pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37638 of 2010. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.