E SAROJINI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are stage carriage operators operating stage carriages on the route Narikkuni - Balussery and Karuvapoyil - Koduvally - Omassery - Thamarassery, respectively on the strength of regular permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. Both of them applied for variation of the permit by curtailment of a sector of the route and an extension of the service on another sector. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode that met on 3.12.2010 considered the applications and resolved to grant the variation subject to settlement of timings, in the light of the report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that though thereafter a timing conference was scheduled to be held on 9.3.2011, it was adjourned in view of the impending elections as a result of which the time schedule has not been settled even after the expiry of more than three months from the date of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. In these writ petitions the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to settle the timings and issue the varied permits in implementation of Ext.P1 decision within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submitted that the first respondent will hold a timing conference, settle the timings and issue the varied permits in implementation of Ext.P1 decision expeditiously. He also submitted that as the petitioners are already operating the service and what they seek is a variation by curtailment of a sector of the route and extension of the service on another sector, the petitioners cannot be said to be really aggrieved by the delay. Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the Chief Electoral Officer, submitted that though the Chief Electoral Officer had issued a direction to the Regional Transport Authorities and the Secretaries of the Regional Transport Authorities not to grant fresh permits, the said direction cannot apply in cases where the Regional Transport Authorities/ Secretaries of the Regional Transport Authorities have to act under orders of Courts. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are existing stage carriage operators and therefore as they are already operating stage carriages there is no reason why the variation granted should not be endorsed on the existing permits.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode disclose that the variation sought by the petitioners was granted in the light of the report submitted by the Field Officer on 3.12.2010. As the petitioners are already operating stage carriages it cannot be said that an endorsement regarding the variation of the permit already held by them will offend the instructions issued by the second respondent.