Transport authority must reconsider timing revisions on merits as directed by Tribunal, not reject solely for non-attendance at conference.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the route Aluva-Fort Kochi (via) Ernakulam South and Menaka in respect of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-13/Y 4266 and is operating on the strength of Ext.P1 settled set of timings. The permit is valid upto 20.04.2027. As per the existing timings, in the evening trip, the 1^st petitioner’s service proceeds from Fort Kochi at 4.08 p.m. and passing Ernakulam South at 4.44 p.m. The 2^nd respondent is operating service with stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-06/H 2091 which is now replaced with vehicle KL-43/Q 9044, on the route Aluva-Mattanchery (via) Ernakulam South and M.G. Road and the timing in the evening trip from Mattanchery starts at 4.21 p.m. and passing Ernakulam South at 4.52 p.m, after 8 minutes of the 1^st petitioner’s service towards Aluva. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent submitted a request for changing the departure time from 4.21 p.m. to 4.17 p.m and the same was rejected by the 1^st respondent on the basis of the report of the Field Officer. Without challenging the said order, he again submitted the very same request and the 1^st respondent conducted a timing conference on 25.04.2023. The 1^st petitioner filed objection to the same. However, the 1^st respondent, without considering the objection raised by the 1^st petitioner, passed Ext.P2 proceedings dated 25.04.2023, revising the timings of the 2^nd respondent’s service from Mattanchery at 4.15.p.m. and passing Ernakulam South at 4.46 p.m; just two minutes after the 1^st petitioner’s service.

2. Challenging Ext.P2, the 1^st petitioner filed M.V.A.R.P.No.77/2023 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (Tribunal) and the Tribunal, by Ext.P3 order dated 09.05.2023, stayed the operation of Ext.P2 with liberty to the 2^nd respondent to operate service with the pre-revised timings for a period of one month. The revision petition was finally heard by the Tribunal on 30.12.2024. The Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order dated 30.12.2024 allowing the revision petition.

Paragraph No.4 thereof reads as follows:

“4. The case of the petitioner is that his trip cannot be conducted since there is only 2 minutes gap ie 5.52 pm arrival and departure at 5.54 pm. He is inferring heavy loss daily. From the facts and evidence, it can be seen that there is vacant time at 4.17 pm due to change of a Cheranalloor bus bearing Reg.No. KL 07 BK 5291 on the route Mattanchery Cheranalloor at 4.18.In Krishnankutty Vs.John ( 1992 (2) KLT 883 , the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that “hence under Rule 145(7), a transport Authority is competent to grant change of timings, if there were changes in the number of permits on the route or on the sectors of the route.” Here due to the change of timings of the 3^rd respondent's stage carriage, the petitioner's trip was not beneficial to the public to the full extent. Moreover, the petitioner is sustaining huge loss on daily basis. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The 2^nd respondent shall reconsider the matter and shall pass orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties.”

3. In compliance with Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 1^st respondent. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 reads as follows:

“On 06/01/2026, a timing conference for KL-43-Q-9044 conducted and in this meeting 7 enroute operators were present, but the appellant Sri.Riyas did not attend the timing conference.

Hence, I, the secretary RTA Ernakulam hereby rejected the application for revision of timings of