The court established that the R.T.A. cannot vary the timings of a service without giving all interested permit holders an opportunity to represent their case, as prescribed by Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

The reliefs prayed for in the O.P. read:-

"(i) call for the records leading to Exts. P5 and P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order;

(ii) direct the 1st respondent to restore Ext. p4 timings; by considering Ext. P6 objections;

(iii) stay the operation of Ext. P5 timings with liberty to operate the service by the 3rd respondent on the basis of Ext. P4 timings, pending the final disposal of the original petition;

(iv) pass such other orders deemed fit in the circumstances of the case; and

(v) award the costs of the petitioner."

2. By Ext. P2 order the Secretary, R.T.A., Kottayam, granted to the 3rd respondent a temporary permit for twenty days to operate his vehicle KEK1203 on the route Kaippally-Palai via., Bharananganam, Ambaranirappel, Erattupetta and Poonjar with the timings made mention of therein. The petitioner challenged Ext. P2 before the S.T.A.T. by filing a revision, the S.T.A.T. while sustaining the grant directed the Secretary to consider the objections, the petitioner has filed, to the timings given to the 3rd respondent, and pass appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of the order. This order reads:-

"Learned Standing Counsel also. 3rd Respondent's permit is for 20 days. Hence the Secretary is directed to consider Ext. P2 objections with notice to 3rd respondent, in one week. Petition allowed to this extent".

3. The Secretary incompliance with the above direction considered the objections of the petitioner and issued Ext. P4 order rescheduling the timings.

4. This was the state of affairs when the R.T.A. granted the regular permit to the petitioner on the route which till then was being operated by him with the vehicle KEK 1203 on the basis of the temporary permit mentioned above. On the grant of the regular permit the 3rd respondent surrendered his temporary permit. Taking all these aspects and the convenience of the travelling public into account, the Secretary issued the regular permit with the timings made mention of in Ext. P5.

5. On going through Ext.P5, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, it can be seen that the Secretary, R.T.A. has restored Ext. P2 timings which had been set aside by the S.T.A.T. by Ext. P3 order. The Secretary, R.T.A., it is further submitted, has no authority to restore Ext. P2 timings. The petitioner therefore was constrained to file Ext. P6 representation before the Secretary seeking a revision of the timings evidenced by Ext. P5. The Secretary by Ext. P7 order rejected Ext. p6. Ext. P7 order reads:-

"You are informed that enquiry conducted through the Joint R.T.O., Palai revealed that there is no chance for clash in the timings of KRO 3155 with KEK 1139 on any trip. It is also seen that the passing time of S.C. KEK 1203 at Palai is 8.57 and that of S.C. KEK 1139 is 8.55 A.M. There is a gap of only 2 minutes. Hence your objection deserves no consideration".

This order Ext.P7 as also Ext. P5 order of the Secretary, R.T.A., according to the learned counsel, are not sustainable and therefore they are liable to be set aside.

6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Ext. P5 order restoring Ext. P2 timings is one passed in violation of the order of the appellate Tribunal, Ext. P3, and therefore the same is not sustainable in law. lam not impressed by this argument. As has rightly been stated by the R.T.A. under the changed circumstances the timings settled by Ext. P5, required revision. This finding based on materials/ evidence is beyond challenge.

7. It was then argued that the timings given to a vehicle on the grant of a new permit shall not clash with the timings given to the vehicle already plying on the same route. If there is the likelihood of any such clash the same can be resolved only after due notice to interested parties. In support of this plea the counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the provisions contained in r