IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14801 of 2006(K)
1. B.SANTHI, KOCHUTHOPPIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. K.ANILAKUMARI, PAYIKKATTIKIZHAKKATHIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 14801 OF 2006-K
-----------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route
Kanakakkunnu – Adoor. One Rajesh Ganga, the predecessor-in-
interest of the 3rd respondent was another stage carriage operator,
operating on the route Kanakakkunnu – Athumbunkulam. These routes
have a common sector of 24 kms from Kanakakkunu to Para Junction.
The above said Rajesh Ganga moved the Secretary, R.T.A., for revision
of the petitioner’s time schedule. This Court by Ext.P1 judgment,
directed the Secretary, R.T.A., to consider that representation. When
the matter was considered pursuant to the direction of this Court, the
petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation. After hearing both sides, the
Secretary, R.T.A issued Ext.P4 time schedule, as per proceedings dated
16.9.2004. Ext.P3 was the original time schedule of the petitioner.
Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner preferred M.V.A.R.P. No.204/2004
before the State Transport Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The said
revision was disposed of by Ext.P5 order, directing the Secretary,
WPC 14801/06 2
R.T.A to modify two time slots. There was s direction to reduce the
stay time at Kayamkulam. It was also ordered to give more time gap
between the service of the petitioner and that of Rajesh Ganga, when
they start from Kayamkulam. As per Ext.P4 time schedule, the
petitioner was to start from Kanakakkunnu at 2.07 p.m. The said time
was to be modified to give more time gap. The aggrieved petitioner
challenged Ext.P5 order of the S.T.A.T before this Court, by filing
W.P.(C) No.3119/2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P6
judgment. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was disposed of by
Ext.P7 judgment, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
But, the petitioner was given liberty to represent, if she has got any
other grievance concerning Ext.P4. The petitioner filed Ext.P8
representation, requesting the Secretary, R.T.A., to treat Ext.P2 filed by
her as the representation submitted pursuant to the direction of the
Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. The Secretary reconsidered the
matter and issued Ext.P9 proceedings dated 28.12.2005, modifying the
time schedule of the petitioner’s vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order,
she filed M.V.A.R.P. No.76/2006 before the S.T.A.T., Ernakulam.
WPC 14801/06 3
The said revision was dismissed by Ext.P10 order, on the ground that
the petitioner did not raise any specific grievance as to any particular
time slot in Ext.P9 and that she has raised only general allegations.
The Tribunal also declined to entertain such vague allegations.
2. I notice that to dispel the above ground taken by the S.T.A.T.,
to dismiss the revision, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the
revision petition nor raised any specific ground in this writ petition,
concerning the finding of the S.T.A.T that her grievances are vague and
general in nature. In view of the above position, I find that no ground
has been made out, warranting interference with Ext.P10. Accordingly,
the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
19th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
Nm/