IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5744 of 2010(P)
1. K.V.SUKUMARAN, KOLATHEKAT HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5744 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging
Ext.P4 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in
MVARP No.167/2009.
2. The petitioner had sought variation of his timings
in respect of stage carriage vehicle No.KL-8/AG 4921
conducting services on the route Guruvayur-Thrissur.
According to the petitioner, at the time of settling the
timings of his service, there was a wrong representation by
the operator of stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-
8/U 787. Relying on the said wrong representation, a set of
timings were issued by the second respondent fixing his
departure time as 8.38 p.m. from Thrissur. Subsequently,
the petitioner came to know that the other operator had
made a false representation and had stated his departure
timings wrongly. Therefore, he submitted a request for the
variation of his timings. The request was considered by the
second respondent and rejected by Ext.P2 order.
wpc No.5744/2010 2
3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 before the STAT.
However, the STAT also confirmed the order of the second
respondent.
4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the
request of the petitioner was to correct a decision that was
taken relying on a false representation made by another
operator. Therefore, the same should not be considered to
be a request for variation of the petitioner’s timings.
5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand
points out that the petitioner had not made out any of the
circumstances that were necessary for changing his
timings as required by Rule 145(7) of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules.
6. I notice that the petitioner has not made the other
operator, who is alleged to have made a false
representation before the second respondent, a party to
this writ petition. The petitioner has also not produced
before this Court, the certified copy of the timings issued to
the other operator to substantiate his case that the said
person had represented his timings wrongly before the
second respondent. Therefore, as matters stand at
wpc No.5744/2010 3
present, the petitioner is only making unsubstantiated
allegations against the other operator who is not made a
party hereto. In the above circumstances, the only
conclusion possible is that the petitioner is making wild
allegations for the reason that the particular timings
sought for by him were not granted to him.
I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orders
under challenge. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/