LAWS(KER)-1960-2-48

NINAN Vs. SECRETARYSTATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYTRIVANDRUM

Decided On February 15, 1960
NINAN Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injury complained of by the petitioner, who runs a bus or, to use the technical language of the Motor Vehicles Act, operates a stage carriage, so as to give him the right to approach this court under Art.226 of the Constitution for quashing an order by the 1st respondent the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum, granting a revision of timings to the 2nd respondent, a rival operator, ignoring the objections of the petitioner, is that as a result of this change in timings, the 2nd respondents bus, KLK. 2267 will run from Kozhancheri to Kulathupuzha, a distance of 50 miles, overlapping to that extent the route of the petitioners bus, K.L.Q. 350 from Mallappally to Kulathupuzha, just a few minutes ahead of the petitioners bus, thus lapping the fat of the traffic and leaving for the petitioners bus only what it cannot swallow. But, on perusing the order passed by the 1st respondent, I find that due notice has been taken of this objection of the petitioner and that by his order the 1st respondent has expressly provided that the 2nd respondents bus, KLT 2267, which reaches Kozhancheri at 7-32 A. M. should wait there for eight minutes and leave that place only at 7-40 so as to enable the petitioners bus which reaches Kozhancheri at 7-30 A. M. to go ahead of it. If this direction is obeyed, the petitioner can suffer no prejudice by the change in timings for, as pertinently pointed out by the 1st respondent, it matters little to the petitioner if another bus follows his. But it is said that the 2nd respondent can with impunity disobey the direction and that there is no machinery for enforcing it I do not think that this theoretical possibility can spell out an actual injury so as to entitle the petitioner to complain to this court, and I should imagine that if the 2nd respondent violates the direction, the petitioner would not be slow to complain of the infringement to the proper authority which I have little doubt is armed with sufficient power to enforce the direction. In fact I dismissed an application for a temporary injunction filed along with this petition on this very ground, namely, that the order of the 1st respondent as it stands works no hardship to the petitioner, and that if the direction therein is disobeyed the petitioner could complain to the proper quarter. That was 22 months ago, and it does not appear that the petitioner has had occasion to make any complaint of the kind. On the other hand he has filed no rejoinder to the 2nd respondents, counter affidavit to the effect that his bus never leaves Kozhancheri before the scheduled hour of 7-40 A. M. and that there are check posts on the route to ensure this. On this short ground, namely that there is nothing to show that the petitioner has been adversely affected by the order complained against, I think this petition must fail.

(2.) I might add that, although the order complained against revises the timings of two of the 2nd respondents buses, and what is sought in the petition is a cancellation of the entire order, it is not the petitioners case that the revision so far as the other bus, TCQ 1271 is concerned, affects him at all.

(3.) Having heard arguments in full I might briefly touch upon the grounds urged in support of the petition. The main ground is that the 1st respondent who is only the Secretary of the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to alter the approved time table since, under the provisions of Clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-s.(3) of S.48 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act C of 1956, the time table is one of the conditions of the permit which under Clause.20 and 21 of the same sub-section, can be varied only by the Regional Transport Authority. The delegation made to the Secretary under R.144 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules framed in 1952 at a time when, under the provisions of the Act as it then stood, this power of regulating timings was governed by S.48 (c) and the time table was not a condition of the permit, cannot operate with regard to the power vested in the Regional Transport Authority under the new Clause.21 and 22 of S.48 (3). In support of this argument reliance is placed on the Division Bench ruling in P. Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 429) and the Single Judge ruling in Thomas v. State Transport Authority, Trivandrum ( 1960 KLT 108 ).