Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16995
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GEORGEKUTTY P.T – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM – Respondent
WP(C)/40791/2022
SAJU J.VALLYARA
The authority must evaluate requests for revision of transport timings per the specified regulations and ensure fair consideration.
Headnote:
Transport - Writ Petition - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules - Rule 145(7) - The court directed the authority to assess the necessity for revising stage carriage timings based on specific requests while adhering to the procedural framework established by the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, stage carriage operators in Kottayam District, filed a writ petition seeking the revision of operating timings for their services after their requests were not considered by the authorities.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' requests for revision of stage carriage timings were considered appropriately by the authorities as per the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The authority is bound to consider requests for revision of timings based on Rule 145(7), necessitating an evaluation of need and circumstances warranting such a revision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, directing consideration of revision requests with due process.
JUDGMEN T
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent to consider Exhibits P-1 and P-2 requests submitted by the petitioners for revision of timings in respect of stage carriages, KL-05/Q-6666 and KL-34-5441 operating on the routes Kanjiram Jetty – Medical College and Attipeedika – Medical College respectively, within a reasonable time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
(sic)
2. The petitioners are the Stage carriage operators in Kottayam District. The timing of the 1st petitioner’s service was settled on 07.08.2000 and that of the 2nd petitioner’s service on 29.10.2013. The petitioners submitted Exts.P1 and P2 request for revision of timing. The grievance of the petitioners is that the same is not considered. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated his contentions raised in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that as per Rule 145 (7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules , the authority has to decide the necessity of the revision of timing. It is submitted that the authority can decide the revision of timing only within the frame work of Rule 145(7) of the Rules. The authority has to decide whether there is a need for the same.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Government Pleader. Admittedly, the petitioners submitted Exts.P1 and P2 requests for revision of timing. If that be the case, there will be a direction to consider the requests for revision of timing, after considering the need for the revision of timing and also by deciding whether there is any circumstances warranting for revision of timing, in the facts and circumstances of this case after hearing all the affected parties.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exts.P1 and P2, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, and also in accordance to seniority.
