JOY SEBASTIAN Vs. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Ernakulam-Mundakkayam on the strength of a regular permit issued in the year 1998. The time scheduled in respect of the said stage carriage was settled on 28.3.1998. Later in the year 2009, the Petitioner moved for revision of timings in view of the introduction of other services on the route/sectors thereof and also due to the fact that the time schedule in respect of other stage carriages was fixed on the basis that the stage carriage would cover a distance of one kilometer in 2 minutes. In the case of the Petitioner, the time schedule was fixed on the basis that his stage carriage would cover one kilometer in 2.25 minutes. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam that met on 29.10.2010 considered the said request and also considered the objections received from two other stage carriage operators. It appears a report had been called for by the Regional Transport Authority. Ext.P2 is a copy thereof. The author of the said report has recommended that the running time of all vehicles including that of the Petitioner may be standardised by fixing 2 minutes as the running time per kilometer. The Regional Transport Authority thereupon decided to re-fix the time schedule of the Petitioner's stage carriage so that there is parity with the running time of the other operators. The grievance voiced by the Petitioner is that though pursuant to the said decision, a timing conference was held on 10.3.2010, the time schedule was not settled and the meeting was indefinitely adjourned. In this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent to settle the timings in implementation of Ext.P3 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) A statement dated 2.2.2011 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein it is conceded that till date, the time schedule has not been finalised. It is also contended that the reduction of running time will result in over speed, thereby affecting the safety of passengers.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel on both sides. The fact that the Regional Transport Authority has recommended standardisation of the running time by treating all operators alike is not in dispute. The Regional Transport Authority has also directed that the time schedule of the Petitioner's stage carriage has to be revised suitably. The said direction has become final. If any one has objection to the proposed time schedule, such objectors cannot also contend that there should not be parity of running time. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Respondent should have taken steps to settle the timings by standardising the running time of the stage carriage run by the Petitioner and the objectors. More than one year has passed after the Regional Transport Authority directed revision of the time schedule, after ensuring parity in the running time. I, therefore, find no merit in the objections raised by the Respondent and I over rule the same.