C. K. Balakrishnan v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 3038 of 2010 (D)** **--------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** ## **-------------------** **C.K.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMPAMPADATH HOUSE, P.O.KADAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **----------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD.** **ADDL.R2 TO R7 IMPLEADED** **ADDL.R2 : THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSOPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD** **ADDL.R3 : N.V.RENJITH, VATHAMKOLLY HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM** **ADDL.R4 : M.SADIK, FAHAD MANZIL, WEST YAKKARA, MURIKAVU, PALAKKAD** **ADDL.R5 : OMANA, CHOKKATH HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, PALAKKAD** **ADDL.R6 : S.UMA, 7/175, SAI SADAN, MANIYAMKODU, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD** **ADDL.R7 : P.NARAYANAN KUTTY, VRINDAVAN, AZHIYANNOR, P.O.PARASSERY, PALAKKAD** **ADDL.R2 TO R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1689/2010 DT.10.02.2010** **R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.P.SHEEBA R3 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 9761/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **AV** ## **W.P.(C).NO.3038/2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2009 IN W.P(C).NO.12240/2009 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2009 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.239/2009** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.2.2008 EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2008** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A TO JUDGE** **AV** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------W.P(C).Nos.3038 and 9761 of 2010 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** The issues arising in these writ petitions are interconnected. They were therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C)No.3038 of 2010 is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route Muriyankunnikadavu – Palakkad as a limited stop ordinary service. The time schedule of his stage carriage was settled and the permit issued on 27.9.2006. Thereafter, he applied for a variation of the permit by submitting an application dated 7.11.2006. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram that met on 17.1.2007 allowed the application subject to settlement of timings. Thereupon a timing conference was held and the time schedule was settled on 18.8.2007. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 and another challenged the order settling the timings by filing W.P.(C)Nos.30974 and 32921 of 2007 in this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued therein a timing conference was ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:2:- held on 5.2.2008, the time schedule of the stage carriage was settled and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 started operating the service based on that time schedule. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 did not challenge the order settling the timings that was issued on 5.2.2008. Instead he submitted applications dated 15.3.2008 and 15.4.2008 wherein he requested for revision of the time schedule. A personal hearing was held on 2.6.2008 and by order passed on the same day the said request was rejected. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 thereupon moved the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who in turn forwarded the application to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad considered the said application and once again rejected it by order passed on 18.12.2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 challenged that order by filing W.P.(C)No.12240 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment produced in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010, the said writ petition was dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the order impugned in that writ petition by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. This Court also ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:3:- directed that if the petitioner files a revision petition within one month from 3.7.2009, it shall be treated as one filed within time and disposed of on the merits at the earliest. 4. Pursuant thereto, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal heard the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010, who got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7 in the revision petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 has not challenged the order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 5.2.2008 settling the timings, that there has been no change in the circumstances thereafter and therefore the applications filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 on 15.3.2008 and 15.4.2008 were not maintainable and were rightly rejected by the order passed on 2.6.2008 and by the order passed on 18.12.2008. By Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revision petition. Hence this writ petition seeking the following relief:- _i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other_ ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:4:- _appropriate, order or direction, directing the respondent to grant the varied permit as requested by the petitioner for the timing and allotment from Attasseri to Kadampuzhipuram at 8 a.m. and return time at 9.22 a.m from Palakkad to Attasseri. Petitioner requested evening timing at 5.45 p.m from Palakkad to Kariampuzha Theruvau, which is the surrendered timing of KL-9/J-2620._ The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the change of timings would not have caused prejudice to any other operator as what was sought was allotment of the time schedule of stage carriages which are no longer operating for the reason that the permit holders have surrendered the permits issued to them. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010, who have got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7, have filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. They contend inter alia that there has been no change in the circumstances after 5.2.2008 warranting a revision of the time schedule. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Krishnankutty v. John**_ , 1992 (2) KLT 883, in support of the said contention. 5. While matters stood thus, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3038 of 2010 submitted a fresh application seeking a revision ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:5:- of the time schedule of his stage carriage. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad thereupon issued Ext.P5 notice dated 5.3.2010 produced in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010, proposing to hold a timing conference on 16.3.2010 to consider the application for revision of time schedule submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010. W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010 was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P5 notice mainly on the ground that with the passing of Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C) No.3038 of 2010, whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld the earlier orders dated 5.2.2008 and 18.12.2008 passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad could not have entertained a fresh application as there is no change in circumstances after the time schedule was settled on 5.2.2008. 6. I heard Sri.Praveen Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010, Smt.M.P.Sheeba and Smt.P.Maya, learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents in the respective writ petitions and Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010. I have also gone through the ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:6:- pleadings and the materials on record. The permit in respect of the stage carriage operated by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 was first issued on 27.9.2006. Within two months thereafter he applied for a variation of the permit and that was granted by order passed on 17.1.2007 subject to settlement of timings. Thereupon, a timing conference was held and the time schedule was settled on 18.8.2007. But before the variation of the permit was endorsed, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 and another moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)Nos.30974 and 32921 of 2007. Pursuant to the direction issued therein a fresh timing conference was held on 5.2.2008 and thereafter Ext.P1 order, produced in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010 was passed settling the time schedule. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 did not challenge that order. Instead, a month later he filed a representation dated 15.3.2008 followed by another representation dated 15.4.2008 seeking a revision of time schedule of his stage carriage. Those applications were rejected on 2.6.2008 for the reason that there has been no change in the circumstances. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 thereupon submitted a representation to the Chief Minister's Public Grievances Redressal Cell, which in turn was forwarded to ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:7:- the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad for consideration. He, by Ext.P2 order passed on 18.12.2008 (produced in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2008) once again rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 filed W.P.(C)No.12240 of 2009 in which Court which was dismissed reserving liberty with him to challenge the order impugned in that writ petition by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. He accordingly moved the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and by Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that there has been no change in the circumstances that obtained as on 5.2.2008 warranting a revision of the time schedule. Even in the instant writ petition the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3038 of 2010 has no case that there has been any change in the circumstances after the time schedule of his stage carriage was revised on 5.2.2008 with the passing of Ext.P1 order produced in W.P.(C) No.9761 of 2010. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in _**Krishnankutty v. John**_ , 1992 (2) KLT 883, the power to revise the time schedule can be exercised only if there has been a change in the circumstance after the earlier order settling the ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:8:- timings was passed. In the absence of any such case for the petitioner that there exists an altered or changed situation or circumstance or a new state of affairs, which did not exist earlier has emerged, it cannot be said that the view taken by the State Transport Tribunal and by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority is perverse warranting interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in the application which was thereafter filed and which was the subject matter of Ext.P5 notice, produced in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2008 the petitioner has no case that there has been any change in circumstances. Such being the situation I am of the opinion that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, erred in entertaining the application and in issuing Ext.P5 notice produced in W.P.(C)No.9761 of 2010. 7. That apart, pursuant to the proceedings dated 8.11.2011 issued by the State Transport Authority which in turn was issued pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in O.P.No.12774 of 1997 steps are afoot to refix the running time of all existing stage carriages in the State of Kerala. The State Transport Authority has also directed that the running time shall be refixed and the time schedules of existing stage carriage services revised based ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** -:9:- on the guidelines set out therein. The Transport Commissioner has thereupon issued directions to all Regional Transport Officers to revise the time schedules of all stage carriages by 15.12.2012. The revision of the time schedule is to be undertaken after revising the running time of all stage carriages in the State of Kerala having regard to the type of roads through which the services are operating. Necessarily therefore, the running time of the petitioners' stage carriage will also require to be refixed pursuant to and in terms of orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the directions issued by the Transport Commissioner. To some extent the grievance of the petitioner will stand redressed once the running time of his stage carriage is refixed. Therefore, no real prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by upholding the orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P2 order in W.P.(C) No.3038 is without any merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently W.P.(C)No.9761 shall stand allowed and Ext.P5 notice and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice are quashed. It is however clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the competent authority ## **W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010** ## -:10:- from refixing the running time of the stage carriages operated by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and consequently revising the time schedules of their stage carriages. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** ## **ahg.** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.P(C).Nos.3038 & 9761 of 2010 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **22[nd] May, 2012**