K. C. Mohanan v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Vibinson A.A.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 8422 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.C.MOHANAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR – 680 003. 2 VIBINSON.A.A, AINIKKAL HOUSE, CHERPU.P.O, THRISSUR – 680 561.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON SRI K.P.HARISH- SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.8422/2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator on the route Guruvayoor-Thrissur-Palakkad in respect of stage carriage bearing registration number KL-08/AT-6955 with timings settled as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 23.03.2000 of the 1[st] respondent (in respect of basic vehicle bearing registration No.KL/08-F-3553) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 order dated 14.02.2019 of the 1[st] respondent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to proceed with Ext.P5 request made by the 2[nd] respondent for revision of timings in respect of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL/45-A-8161, on the route GuruvayoorThrissur-Palakkad, strictly in accordance with law, and subject to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment dated 03.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.38096 of 2018. **WP(C)No.8422/2019 3** 2. On 23.03.2019 when this writ petition came up for admission the 2[nd] respondent entered appearance through Counsel and sought time to file counter affidavit. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. The issue that has to be considered in this writ petition is as to the illegally or otherwise of Ext.P11 order dated 14.02.2019 of the 1[st] respondent. 5. The 2[nd] respondent had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.38096/2018, seeking consideration of Ext.P5 request dated 09.11.2018 for revision of timings of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-45/A-8161, on the route Palakkad-Guruvayoor. By Ext.P8 judgment dated 03.12.2018, the said writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. Paragraph 5 to 9 of the said judgment read thus; “5. On 09.11.2018, the petitioner made Ext.P5 request before the respondent for revision of timings. Going by the averments in Ext.P5 request, **WP(C)No.8422/2019 4** there is a changed scenario as far as the route in question is concerned. It is in such circumstances that, the petitioner is seeking revision of his own timings, so as to avoid clash of timing with other services. 6. In **Krishnankutty v. John [1992(2) KLT 883]** , after referring to the provisions under Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, this Court held that the words “from time to time” used in the said Rules mean that the Regional Transport Authority can change the timings only if the ground or reason exists for the revision of timings. Such ground or reason has been held to exist “only in altered or changed circumstances or by emergence of new state of affairs which did not exist when the earlier order was passed”. It is therefore clear that unless there is a change of circumstances or emergence of a new state of affairs, which did not exist when the timings are originally fixed, the Regional Transport Authority has no authority to change the timings. 7. The law laid down in **Krishnankutty's case** referred to supra was followed by this Court in **Mohammed Sadique v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1994 Kerala 1)** , wherein it was held that timings can be changed only if a ground or reason exists for revision of timings. **WP(C)No.8422/2019 5** 8. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider the question as to whether a timing conference is required to be convened for considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 for revision of timing, taking into account the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the respondent, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. 9. If the respondent finds that there has been a changed circumstances or there has emerged a new state of affairs since the fixation of timings as per Ext.P4 proceedings dated 11.10.2017, he shall convene a timing conference to consider Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner for revision of timing and take an appropriate decision on that request, with notice to the petitioner and also to other enroute operators. The process in this regard shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.” 6. Taking note of the law laid down by the Division Bench in **Krishnankutty v. John [1992(2) KLT 883]** , which was followed in **Mohammed Sadique v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority [AIR 1994** **WP(C)No.8422/2019 6** **Kerala 1]** , W.P.(C) No.38096/2018 filed by the 2[nd] respondent was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, by directing the 1[st] respondent herein to consider the question as to whether a timing conference is required to be convened for considering the request made by the 2[nd] respondent herein in Ext.P5 request for revision of timings. The 1[st] respondent was directed to take a decision in that regard, with notice to the 2[nd] respondent herein and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. In Ext.P8 judgment it was made clear that, if the 1[st] respondent finds that there has been a changed circumstances or there has emerged new state of affairs, since the fixation of timing as per Ext.P4 proceedings dated 11.10.2017, he shall convene a timing conference to consider Ext.P12 request made by the 2[nd] respondent herein for revision of timings and take an appropriate decision on that request, with notice to the said respondent and also to other enroute operators. The 1[st] respondent was directed to complete the process in that **WP(C)No.8422/2019 7** regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. 7. The document marked as Ext.P9 is the notification issued by the 1[st] respondent, pursuant to the directions issued in Ext.P8 judgment; however, without taking a decision as to the necessity to convene a timing conference, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. After Ext.P9 notification, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P11 order dated 14.02.2019, whereby the 2[nd] respondent herein has been granted revision of timings of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL/45-A-8161, on the route GuruvayoorThrissur-Palakkad. 8. The fact that, before issuing Ext.P9 notification, the 1[st] respondent has not undertaken an exercise to consider the question as to whether a timing conference is required to be convened for considering the request for revision of timings made by the 2[nd] respondent herein in **WP(C)No.8422/2019 8** Ext.P5, as directed in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, is not in dispute. On a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that, a reading of Ext.P9 notification or Ext.P11 order would not disclose any such exercise being undertaken by the 1[st] respondent. In such circumstances, the only course that is open to this Court is to set aside Ext.P11 order dated 14.02.2019 and to direct the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P5 application made by the 2[nd] respondent for revision of timings, strictly in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court dated 03.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.38096/2018. Once Ext.P11 order is set aside, Ext.P14 consequential order issued by the 1[st] respondent has no legs to stand on. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, by setting aside Ext.P11 order dated 14.02.2019 of the 1[st] respondent and by directing the said respondent to undertake consideration of Ext.P5 request made by the 2[nd] respondent for revision of timings of his stage carriage, **WP(C)No.8422/2019 9** strictly in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** YKB **WP(C)No.8422/2019 10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23/3/2000(ORDER NO.G/7028/2000/R)** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT VALID TILL 03.5.2021 ISSUED OT THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.3.2000 (ORDER NO.G/7026/2000/R)** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.04.2001(ORDER NO.C2/23149/2001/R)** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR REVISION OF TIMINGS DATED 09.11.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION (EXCLUDING EXHIBITS) IN WPC.NO.38096 OF 2018** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF TIMINGS OF KL-45-A-8161 ISSUED ON 11.10.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2018 IN WPC.NO.38096/2018** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.01.2019** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTION DATED 16/01/2019** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.02.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTION DATED 22.02.2019** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.02.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **WP(C)No.8422/2019 11** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION (EXCLUDING EXHIBITS) IN MVARP NO.27/2019 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE UPLOADED CASE DETAILS OF MVARP.NO.27/2019 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2A: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE DT.6.6.2016.** **//TRUE COPY//** **==> picture [68 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> PA TO JUDGE<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **YKB**