MOHAMMED ISMAIL Vs. BIJU JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mohammed Ismail, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27192/2021, W.P.(C) 4832/2021(from which R.P. No. 652/2021 arises) and COC No. 1118/2021, owned vehicle No. KL 12/C 3330, a stage carriage run as a limited stop ordinary service from Guruvayoor to Ernakulam, with a permit valid upto 21/8/2021. An application for variation of permit so as to operate service through Varappuzha Bridge was granted by the RTA, subject to settlement of timings. Contending that due to Covid 19, RTA meetings have not been held and that the delay in issuing the permit with settlement of timing is causing considerable delay and inconvenience to the writ petitioner, he approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4832/2021. It was allowed by judgment dtd. 19/3/2021, directing the Secretary, RTA to consider the report from the sister authority and the report of the AMVI and to pass appropriate orders provisionally fixing the timing. It was also directed that on the basis of the report of the AMVI, it was found that there was a clash of timing with the existing operators, he can appropriately modify it and issue provisional timing. It was further clarified that the timing will be in force till the timing conference was convened and the final timing was fixed. This was ordered in view of the fact that due to the pandemic situation that existed at that point of time, RTA meetings were not being convened.

(2.) Subsequently, alleging that the above judgment was not complied, C.O(C) No. 1118/2021 was filed on 21/7/2021. The matter is pending.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the Secretary, RTA, filed a Review Petition on 29/9/2021 to review the judgment in W.P(C) No. 4832/2021. The Review Petition was filed on 29/9/2021 on a premise that, though a timing conference was called, there were several objections by the other operators as well as the KSRTC regarding the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also did not participate. Hence, contending that if such an application filed by the petitioner was allowed, it would clash with the timing given to the existing operators in timing conferences, the Secretary has approached this court. He specifically relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 936/2021, wherein an identical order passed by this court was set aside by the Division Bench on the premise that fixing of timing based on the tentative timing proposed by the applicant would cause clash with the timing of the other existing operators. It was contended that all enroute operators were running on the basis of the timings granted in timing conference and if the timing of the petitioner was accepted, it would result in chaotic situation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer that in relation to his stage carriage bearing KL-12-C-3330 had submitted an application for renewal, which was pending. Since renewed permit was not issued, he was not in a position to replace the vehicle as well as to endorse granted variation.