The statutory authority can only revise the timings under R.212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules if any 'ground' or 'reason' exists for the revision, which can only arise in altered or changed situations or circumstances.

Paripoornan, J.

The second respondent in O.P.No.12735 of 1992 is the appellant in this appeal. The petitioner and the first respondent in the O.P. are the respondents herein. The Original Petition was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the first respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to dispose of Ext.P1 timings representation dated 7-7-1992 after hearing the petitioner, the second respondent and all other affected parties. This is in brief the prayer, though the actual prayer in the O.P. is cumbersome and ambiguous.

2. A learned single judge of this Court disposed of the O.P. even at the admission stage, after hearing the petitioner in the O.P. and the Government Pleader. The learned single judge, in a brief judgment, directed the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner after hearing him, second respondent and all other affected parties with utmost expedition. The second respondent's the

O.P. has come up in writ appeal.

3. We heard counsel for the appellant - Mr. P Gopalakrishna Menon as also counsel for the respondents.

4. Appellant's counsel argued that Ext.P1 representation is regarding the timings of the bus KL-7/A.5751 from Edakochi to Kakkanad. The said bus is operated by the appellant in the route Thevakkal - Kakkanad. One of the services is to start from Edakochi at 1.51 P.M. The main objection of the petitioner in the O.P. is relating to the departure time of the appellant's service, fixed to start from Edakochi at 1.51 P.M. The bus belonging to the petitioner in the O.P. in the route is to start from Edakochi at 1.55P.M. The petitioner wanted that the departure time for his bus should be changed as 1.51 P.M. and to fix the departure time of the appellant's bus KL-7/A.5751 at 1.55 P.M. Counsel for the appellant argued that the revision of the timings regarding KL-7/A.5751 which operated in the Thevakkal - Edakochi route was fixed by the order of the Secretary, R.T.A., Ernakulam dated 14-1-1992 (marked as annexure- a in the writ appeal). The said statutory authority, after due publication of the notice in the notice board, fixed the departure time of the appellant's bus at 1.51 P.M. When the said order was passed, no objection was raised by any of the operators. The petitioner in the O.P. did not object to the timings. If he was aggrieved by the said order (annexure- e) he should have filed a revision under S.90 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the State Transport appellate Tribunal. After having acquiesced in the order of the Secretary, R.T. A., Ernakulam fixing the departure time of the appellant's bus at 1.51 P.M. from Edakochi, the present attempt of the petitioner (1st respondent herein) by filing Ext.P1 is to annul or render nugatory the earlier order passed dated 14-1-1992, which has become final. What is more, the learned single judge directed consideration of Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner in the O.P. for changing the departure time of the petitioner's bus as 1.51 P.M. from Edakochi and directed the second respondent herein to consider the matter even without notice to the appellant, who was the second respondent in the O.P. The order passed by the learned single judge is illegal and void. The effect of the order passed by the learned single judge is to direct the Secretary, R.T.A. to consider the plea of the petitioner, that the departure time of his bus from Edakochi should be changed as 1.51 P.M. and allot the departure time for the appellant's bus as 1.55 P.M. The matter is concluded and no such application as Ext.P 1 will lie at the instance of the petitioner in the O.P., in view of the earlier order passed by the Secretary, R.T.A, Ernakulam, especially when there is no change in the situation or circumstances necessitating a revision of the earlier order. On these premises, counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned single judge.

5. Counsel for the first respondent (petition