V.S. George v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/14TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 13437 of 2013 (D)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **V.S. GEORGE, VALIPLACKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUMBHAZA, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS.** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** ## *** ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED** **2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 04/06/2013 IN I.A. NO.7204/2013.** **R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.M. SANEER. ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KSRTC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 13437 of 2013 (D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **P1 : COPY OF THE CLARIFIED PROCEEDING GRANTING VARIATION SIGNED ON 29.04.2013.** - **P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE FIXING THE TIMING CONFERENCE ON 10.05.2013.** - **P3 : COPY OF THE ANOTHER NOTICE FIXING THE TIMING CONFERENCE ON 23.05.2013.** - **P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION REQUESTING TO ISSUE THE GRANTED VARIATION WITH PROPOSED TIMINGS, DTD. 10.05.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J** ## *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.13437 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of June 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a stage carriage operator having a regular permit for the route Thiruvalla - Pathanamthitta v Kottayam. He sought for variation of the route by Thiruvalla v Kottayam and confined to Thiruvalla - Pathanamthitta and also requested for additional trips. This was allowed by Regional Transport Authority. The matter was clarified by virtue of a judgment of this Court in W.P.C.No.286 and 6651 of 2013. The clarification order is Ext.P1 in which it is stated that the variation is of a temporary nature. The petitioner has a complaint that there is no variation of a temporary nature as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The variation, if any, granted is of a permanent nature. He had filed M.V.A.A.No.195 of 2013 before the State Transport Appellate Authority. 2. In respect of the additional trips granted by the RTA, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation objected W.P.C..No.13437/2013 2 two additional trips by contending that the same was through the notified route. They had filed M.V.A.R.P.No.179 of 2013 before the STAT and the grant of the said additional trips has been stayed by the STAT. 3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court complaining that though the variation had been permitted, the timings had not been settled so far. Two conferences were already held, but nothing turned out and still, the petitioner is unable to operate the route as per the varied permit. He has produced Ext.P4 for the proposed timings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as last two trips are concerned, those are additional trips which had been stayed by the STAT. Hence the petitioner requests for a direction to permit him to operate the route on the basis of Ext.P4 timings subject to the stay order passed by the STAT in M.V.A.R.P.No.179 of 2013. 4. The learned Government Pleader however opposes the request of the petitioner on the ground that unless timing conference is held and decision taken by the W.P.C..No.13437/2013 3 concerned authorities, it is not open for the petitioner to operate in the said route as there would be clash of timings and several persons had to be heard in the matter. 5. It is not in dispute that two conferences had already been held and there is no material on record to suggest that any objection had been raised in respect of the proposed timings of the petitioner in Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, the delay in granting permit to operate in the varied route is causing substantial loss to him. Since the permit has already been varied, it is all the more necessary that the petitioner should be permitted to operate in the varied route. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the authorities are to be directed to complete the process within a specified time and if not done, the petitioner should be permitted to operate in the said route at the timings as proposed in Ext.P4. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: W.P.C..No.13437/2013 4 i) The respondent shall convene a timing conference and settle the timings in terms of Ext.P4 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after excluding two additional trips sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. ii) If the respondent is not in a position to settle the timings within the aforesaid period, it shall be open for the petitioner to operate in the said route on the basis of the proposed timings at Ext.P4 after excluding the said two additional trips which is the subject matter of M.V.A.R.P.No.179 of 2013. iii) The petitioner shall be able to operate the additional trips subject to the decision in M.V.A.R.P.No.179 of 2013. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C..No.13437/2013 5 W.P.C..No.13437/2013 6 W.P.C..No.13437/2013 7