Narayanan vs The State Transport Appellate on 17 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 268 of 2009(F)


1. NARAYANAN, THALIKKAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

3. THE SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :17/02/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    -----------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.268 of 2009
                --------------------------------------
           Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Consequent on variation of permit granted in petitioner’s

favour, Exhibit P1 timings were also varied and Exhibit P3 is the

proceedings. In the timings thus resettled, petitioner is more

aggrieved about his departure time form Changaramkulam,

which is now fixed at 9.21 a.m. and reaching Althara at 9.51

a.m. Referring Exhibit P1 proceedings of the 3rd respondent,

petitioner submits that stage carriage bearing registration No.

KL-10 L 2767 is departing Changaramkulam at 9.20 a.m. It is

also stated that while he has to depart from Althara at 9.53 a.m,

stage carriage KL-7 AH 8994 is departing at 9.52 am, giving a

time gap of only one minute in the aforesaid sector. Petitioner,

filed M.V.A.R.P 389 of 2008 before the Tribunal. In the

memorandum of revision he has made following averments.

” The departure time form Changaramkulam is

given as 9.21, that is to proceed to Althara, a place 8

k.m away. The service prior to the petitioner’s service

is one minute ahead, which is at 9.20. To

W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009
2

substantiate the same, the true copy of the

proceeding of stage carriage KL-10 L 2767 is produced

herewith and marked as Exhibit P1. The service after

9.20 is at 9.35. So, petitioner could have been given

a time in between 9.20 and 9.35 and not to force the

petitioner to operate just one minute’s interval. Same

is the case as to the return trip. The return trip

departs from Althara at 9.53, which is just one minute

ahead of stage carriage KL-7 AH 8994. To

substantiate the same, the true copy of the time

schedule of KL-7 AH 8994 is produced herewith and

marked as Exhibit P2. The next service is at 10.15.

When there is a gap of 23 minutes, and the gap being

unchallenged, petitioner does not know as to why he

is forced to operate in this manner. Petitioner’s limited

prayer is for a better time gap between the

petitioner’s service as well as that of other services on

the route in question. The proposal to increase the

time gap will not in any way cause any inconvenience

W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009
3

to any of the existing permit holders.”

2. The Tribunal, heard the petitioner and considered the

revision, but however, dismissed the same by Exhibit P5 on the

ground that the petitioner has no case that there is any violation

of the principles of natural justice or non-observance of the

statutory requirements. The Tribunal also held that in a well

served or over saturated sector, it is quite natural that one may

not get enough time gap for his service.

3. However, in the light of the factual averments made, a

reading of Exhibit P5 shows that the Tribunal has not adverted

the factual averments made by the petitioner in the

memorandum of revision petition as extracted above where he is

rely on Exhibits P1 and P2 also. This shows that the Tribunal has

not properly considered the grievance of the petitioner.

4. In order to enable the petitioner to redress his

grievance concerned, I feel that it is appropriate that the 3rd

respondent shall reconsider Exhibit P3 to the extent petitioner is

aggrieved as stated above. Therefore, I set aside Exhibits P3 and

P5 and writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

W.P.(C) No.268/ 2009
4

(1)Since the petitioner is operating on the strength of

Exhibit P3 proceedings, I direct that status quo as

on date in so far as Exhibit P3, will be maintained

for another three months.

(2)In the meanwhile, Secretary R.T.A. shall reconsider

Exhibit P3 to the extent petitioner is departing from

Changaramkulam at 9.21 a.m. and from Althara at

9.53 a.m, with notice to all concerned and if

necessary pass fresh proceedings revising the

timings of the petitioner.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the

3rd respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm