Kerala High Court
Ramakrishnan vs Shanavas on 9 November, 2021
W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WA NO. 1458 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19917/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. BALAN NAIR, MELEPPATT HOUSE, AMAYUR,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SHANAVAS
S/O SIDHEEQ, MULAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY,
THRISSUR - 679531.
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE P. O., PALAKKAD-
678001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. K.P.HARISH, SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -2-
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C.J.
Considering the reasons assigned in I. A. No. 1 of 2021, by
order dated 03.11.2021, we granted leave to the appellant to file writ
appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2020 in W. P. (c) No. 19917
of 2020.
2. Before the writ court, respondent No. 1 herein has sought for
a writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary, RTA, to implement
Exhibit P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad,
in the meeting held on 24.12.2019, granted variation converting
limited stop ordinary service as ordinary service, within a period of
three weeks or within such other time permitted by this Court, by
endorsing the granted variation on the permit of the route Thrissur -
Pattambi, with KL 48 N 6596 (old vehicle KL 9 T 2430), with
proposed timing or otherwise, with liberty to the Secretary, RTA, to
conduct the timing conference later, and settle timing, after
implementing Exhibit P1, if found required later, or otherwise.
3. After considering the pleadings and submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, by
judgment in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020, writ court
issued the following directions:-
"a) The respondent shall obtain a report from the Motor
Vehicles Inspector and ensure that the provisional timings
offered by the petitioner and noted in Exhibit P2 do not clash
with the timings of other vehicles operating on the same route. If
there is a likelihood of a clash of timings, the timing shall be
modified accordingly. On the basis of the same, the respondent
shall issue varied regular permit to the petitioner within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is made clear that the timing so fixed shall be
provisional in nature.
b) The above direction shall be subject to settlement of
timings formally at a timing conference which shall be
scheduled by the concerned authority. If the situation is not
conducive to hold an open meeting in physical mode, the
respondents may hold the conference virtually, if there are no
other impediments.
c) It is also made clear that the issuance of the permit
with provisional timing as directed in direction (a) above will not
be seen as conferring any right on the petitioner to insist on the
same timings at the time of settlement of the timings at the
formal meeting to be convened by the Regional Transport
Authority as per direction (b)."
4. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment, instant appeal
is filed on the following grounds:-
A. This Court by the impugned judgment disposed the writ petition
directing that the timing suggested by the writ petitioner shall be
treated as provisional timings after getting a report from the AMVI
and ascertain whether there is time clash with the timings of
existing operators also and also the convenience of the travelling
public and to fix the same within a time frame on a provisional
basis. Such issue of revised timings provisionally, when there is
already a settled set of timings, is against Rule 212 of the Kerala
Motor Vehicles and is not permissible as laid down by this Court
in the decision reported in 1968 KLT 73 and 1973 KLT 266 and in
all subsequent decisions. The direction contained to issue revised
timings on a provisional basis is even beyond the prayer and
direction contained in Exhibit P2 judgment. The same seriously
affects the legal and legitimate rights of the appellants and the
direction contained in the impugned judgment is an error of law
apparent on the face of the records itself.
B. In certain cases where fresh regular permit is already granted and
the service could not operate for want of time schedule, after
settlement of timings, this Court had occasion to direct issue of a
set of timings provisionally in order to commence the operation
pending settlement of timings. Such a procedure cannot be
adopted in the case of services already operating with settled set of
timings. The statute does not contemplate the procedure in issuing
revised timings provisionally when there is already a settled set of
timings. Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules clearly
mandates that before the revision of timings in respect of a service,
opportunity have to be given to the concerned operators before
effecting such changes. This also postulates that there cannot be
any revision of timings on provisional basis and thereafter hearing
objections. As far as 1st respondent is concerned there is already a
settled set of timings issued as per Annexure A1 and any change
can be only in accordance with Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules and by convening a timings conference in which
operators have to be heard. Therefore the 1 st respondent is not
entitled for any relief sought in the writ petition.
5. Though the judgment in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020 dated
25.11.2020 is impugned on the above grounds, by inviting the
attention of this Court to the judgments in W. A. No. 936 of 2021
dated 09.08.2021 and W. A. No. 996 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021 and
the proceedings of the RTA, Palakkad dated 15.01.2020, marked as
Annexures A3, A4 and A5 respectively, Mr. I. Dinesh Menon, learned
counsel for the appellant, submitted that the directions issued in the
impugned judgment have been acted upon.
6. However, inviting attention of this Court to Annexure A5
proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad, Order No.
C3/8985/2019/P dated 15.01.2020, Mr. I. Dinesh Menon, learned
counsel for the appellant, submitted that the provisional timing has
already been fixed. He further submitted that formal timing
conference is yet to be convened, and in such circumstances, appellant
be provided with an opportunity of hearing, before fixing the final
timing for operation of the vehicles.
7. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed
on record.
8. Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that the timing conference was fixed in respect of various
vehicles on 05.05.2021, but due to Covid - 19 conditions, the same
could not be convened. He endorsed the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that as per the directions issued in W. P. (c)
No. 19917 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020, provisional timing has already
been fixed. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that
timing conference is fixed for next month.
9. Thus placing on record the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader, there is
no need to delve into the issues raised in this writ appeal.
10. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is
directed to include the subject of fixing the formal timing for the
vehicles, covered under Annexure A5 Order No. C3/8985/2019/P
dated 15.01.2020, in the next meeting.
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is further
directed to provide the appellant, an opportunity of hearing, and place
all materials in support of his contention. He shall also issue notice to
Mr. Shanavas, Mulakkal House, Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur, respondent
No. 1, and other en-route operators, and take appropriate decision in
the timing conference, in accordance with law, within 6 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any decision taken in
the timing conference be communicated to the parties.
Accordingly, writ appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WA 1458/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 1992(2)
KLT 883.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 1995(1)
KLJ 296.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.NO.936/2021 DATED 9.8.2021.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.NO.996/2021 DATED 9.8.2021.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
RTA, PALAKKAD DATED 15.01.2020.
