K.V.Mammukutty vs The Secretary on 25 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18429 of 2007(R)


1. K.V.MAMMUKUTTY, KULANGARA VEETTIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. T.SAJI, S/O.BHARATHAN, 24/1567C,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :25/06/2007

 O R D E R
                               S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

                      ----------------------------------

                        W.P.(C)NO. 18429 OF 2007

                      -----------------------------------

             DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2007


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks revision of his timings on the ground that on

account of a new permit and timings issued to the 2nd respondent there

is change of circumstances warranting such revision. The petitioner

submits that his timings were settled as early as on 16.2.98.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also

the learned Government pleader. After hearing both sides, I am not

satisfied that I can grant the prayer of the petitioner since the

appropriate remedy available to the petitioner, if the timings in Ext.P2

comes in clash with the petitioner’s timings, is to file a revision before

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Of course, the petitioner would

submit that he does not want to challenge Ext.P2 but only wants

revision of his timings because of Ext.P2, which certainly is change of

circumstance as contemplated under law. I do not agree with the

contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that the

timings in Ext.P2 comes into clash with Ext.P1 timings of the

petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner should have first

objected to Ext.P1 timings and if the objections are not accepted, he

W.P.(c)No.18429/07 2

should have filed a revision. When a new operator comes into

scene, normally the R.T.A. cannot settle the timings against the

settled timings of the petitioner. Therefore, I am certainly of

opinion that the petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an appeal against

Ext.P2 and not to seek revision of his timings on the ground of

change of circumstance on account of Ext.P2. Therefore, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 timings

issued to the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.18429/07 3