IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8360 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P. REMADEVI, AGED 49, W/O. K.K. ASOKAN, KAVUMGUMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 3. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A.ASIF BY SRI. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8360 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage on the route Vaikom – Kaloor – Amritha Hospital on the strength of a regular permit. He applied for and granted a variation of the route. Thereupon a timing conference was held and a set of timings issued. Aggrieved by the settlement of timings, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, but it was dismissed. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.16219/2009 in this Court. The said writ petition was also dismissed with the observation that if there is a change in the circumstance, the petitioner can seek revision of his own timings before the first respondent. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P1 application dated 3.12.2010 before the first respondent for revision of his own timings. The proposed timings set out by the petitioner was also notified and objection invited. The petitioner's application was also an item in the timing conference which was scheduled to be held on 4.3.2011. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P4 letter sent by the District Election Officer & District Collector, Ernakulam to the first respondent, the timing conference was postponed until afte the ensuing elections are W.P.(C) No.8360 of 2011 2 held. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 letter and seek a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for revision of his own timings and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. I heard Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.A.Asif, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. The learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the Chief Electoral Officer has issued a communication dated 9.3.2011 to all District Collectors that the permission from the Chief Electoral Officer will be obtained only for issuing new permits and that even in respect of the applications for issuance of permits if any direction from the court exists, the same may also be mentioned in the request for permission, so that the direction of this Court are not violated. The learned standing counsel has produced a copy of the said communication for perusal which reads as follows:- W.P.(C) No.8360 of 2011 3 “ In response to the clarification whether the Regional Transport Authority Board Meetings can be conducted, the following instructions are issued: The Regional Transport Authority Board Meetings can be conducted, but for issuance of new permits, prior permissions must be obtained from Chief Electoral Officer clearly stating the need for such permits, case by case. If the authorities entertain any doubt suo moto or otherwise whether any application for issuance and renewal of permits may have the effect of breach of the provision of Model Code of Conduct, the same may also be referred to this office. If any court direction exists in respect of such applications the same may also specifically mentioned so that the directions of Courts are not violated.” In such circumstances, what the petitioner seeks is only a revision of time schedule on the existing stage carriage service, Ext.P4 cannot stand in the way of the respondents from revising the time schedule. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for revision of timings and pass appropriate orders thereon within three weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before him. Needless to say, first respondent shall issue notice to and W.P.(C) No.8360 of 2011 4 afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other stage carriage operators who would be affected by the change of timings sought by the petitioner. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.