HARIDAS Vs. KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. No.3110/90 came up for orders, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. After hearing their lengthy arguments I think that the original petition itself is to be disposed of. Accordingly I am disposing of the original petition.

(2.) Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. His vehicle KRK 6822 is covered by permit on the route Kainady-Vellooparamba. The permit granted to the vehicle has fixed a set of timings. On the allegation that the timings clashes with timings of the vehicle belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation he approached this court by filing O.P.5682/88. It was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment dated 4-8-1988 by directing the R.T.O. Kottayam to fix the timings for the services on the route pursuant to that direction the third respondent fixed the timings of the vehicles by Ext. P4 order dated 3-12-1988. That timing is not, according to the petitioner, adhered to by respondents 1 and 2. Hence this original petition inter alia praying the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to operate their vehicles as per Ext. P4 timings fixed by the third respondent.

(3.) On behalf of respondents l and 2 a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. According to them, third respondent fixed Ext. P4 timings to suit the convenience of the petitioner and that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to fix the timings of the vehicles belonging to the Corporation. Petitioner's permit is in relation to a route having a length of 20 kms. Out of this 16.5 kms falls on notified route. As per R.212 of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Corporation is having the authority to fix the timings in respect of their services' The direction in Ext. P3 judgment was to fix the timings of the petitioner's vehicle and not of those belonging to the Corporation. Under the cover of Ext. P3 what the third respondent did was to revise the timings of the vehicles belonging to the Corporation. It is illegal. This court in W.A.456/82 has held that R.T.O. has no power to fix the timing of the vehicles belonging to the Corporation. Accordingly it was contended that the petitioner cannot ask for any direction from this court to respondents l and 2 to ply their vehicle in accordance with the timing fixed in Ext. P4 order.