IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18313 of 2007(E)
1. C.MANOJ KUMAR, PUTHILYAVEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. N.M.GEORGE, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE,
4. V.S.DAMODARAN, S/O.SANKARAN,
5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.DEEPAK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 18313 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is operating a LSOS service in the route
Pathanamthitta – Ernakulam. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4, an
order passed by the Tribunal in MVARP 54/2007 filed by the
4th respondent. Petitioner submits that the permit was
initially issued to the 3rd respondent, who was operating on
the strength of the timing settled on 1.2.2001 implementing
Circular No.3. It is stated that thereafter by Ext.P5 order
dated 9.7.2003, the timing was revised and 2.25
minutes/kilometer was the running time settled.
Subsequently, according to the petitioner, while the 3rd
respondent was operating on the strength of Ext.P5,
following the finding of this Court regarding the
unworkability of Circular No.3, all others were operating at
2 minutes/kilometer.
2. Thereafter the 3rd respondent sought parity in
WP(C) 18313/07
2
running time and that was rejected by Ext.R3(d). It is
stated that a revision was filed as MVRP 373/2006 resulting
in Ext.R3(f) directing parity in running time. It is stated
that on that basis, the 3rd respondent’s time schedule was
revised by Ext.P2, fixing 2 minutes/kilometer and in the
meantime the permit was transferred in favour of the
petitioner with effect from 7.2.2007, while, according to the
4th respondent, the endorsement was made only on
18.5.2007.
3. Be that as it may, 4th respondent filed a revision
before the Tribunal as MVRP 54/2007 on 15.2.2007
impleading the 3rd respondent, being the original permit
holder. According to the petitioner, as the permit was
already transferred in his favour, the 3rd respondent had no
interest in the subject matter and therefore he did not
appear or contest the matter and the proceedings
culminated in Ext.P4 by which Ext.P2 was reversed and it
was held that there was no change of circumstances
WP(C) 18313/07
3
justifying revision of timings effected by Ext.P2. It is
challenging this order, this writ petition is filed.
4. Though various contentions have been raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 4th
respondent, the grievance of the petitioner is confined to
the operative portion of the order where the Tribunal has
not remitted the matter back to the Secretary of RTA for
settling of timings in pursuance thereof and I feel that this
submission is justified.
5. True, learned counsel for the 4th respondent has a
case that irrespective of Ext.P5, petitioner was operating on
the strength of timings as settled in 2000, and he would
contend for the position that the consequence of Ext.P4 is
that the petitioner is at liberty to continue to operate at 2
minutes/kilometer. Even if factually he is right, it cannot
be disputed that by Ext.P5 the timing of the petitioner was
revised.
6. Therefore Ext.P4 stands set aside and the matter is
WP(C) 18313/07
4
remitted back to the Secretary to consider the timings to be
scheduled in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle. This the
Secretary shall do with notice to the petitioner and the 4th
respondent and other affected parties. The Secretary shall
also take into account as to whether the original timings of
2000 is available to be allotted to the petitioner, or else, he
will fix a suitable timing.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-