IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20433 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PRADEEP.D., AGED 38, S/O/DIVAKARANI PILLAI, JAYASADAN, EAST KADUNGALLOOR ALWAYE-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY , ERNAKULAM 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20433/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF KL 07 AH 7033. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.8.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.369 DATED 11.10.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDNET ALONG WITH THE TIMINGS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS MVARP NO.11/08) DATED 9.1.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO.11/08 DATED 19.5.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF KL 07/S.2939. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF KL 07/AC.3989 REPLACED BY KL-42/7374. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20433 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the timing that was settled in favour of the petitioner. He was not satisfied with the halting time fixed in Ext.P1 in so far as the trips in between Sl.Nos. 3 and 4, 5 and 6 and 9 and 10 are concerned. Thereupon he filed Ext.P2 with a request to revise his aforesaid timing avoiding the waiting time. Accordingly, Ext.P3 notice was published calling for objections. According to the petitioner, there were no objections. Despite all that, by Ext.P4 order, the timings in between Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 of Ext.P1 alone were revised. He filed Ext.P5 revision and that was rejected by Ext.P6. It is challenging Ext.P4 in so far as request was allowed only partially and Ext.P6, in so far as it rejects the revision, this writ petition is filed. 2. In so far as the halting time between 9.41 a.m and 10.29 a.m is concerned, in Ext.P4 order, the Secretary has stated that there are so many buses having halting time more than one hour at Kaloor and Aluva and that, for that reason the existing operators had objected to the change of timings. In so far as the request for revising the halting time between WPC 20433/08 :2 : 7.06 P.M and 8.45 P.M is concerned, it is stated by the Secretary that being the last trip, there is no need to change the existing timings and that there were objections from the existing operators as well. These two reasons stated by the Secretary RTA has been accepted by the Tribunal in Ext.P6. 3. In my view, the reason stated by the Secretary and as confirmed by the STAT are certainly valid reasons. When halting time is uniformly given to several operators, if a change of time in so far as one is effected, it will necessarily result in upsetting the schedule of others as well. That apart, there is nothing unreasonable in the Secretary taking the view that since the 8.45 trip being the last, it is not desirable to change the same. I am not in a position to find any invalidity in these two orders. Writ petition lacks merit and it dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp