REDSON T.M. Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are materially connected and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27166/2016 is the third respondent in the other writ petition, similarly, petitioner therein is the additional third respondent in the said writ petition. Therefore, I propose to pass a common judgment in these writ petitions. Facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.27166/2016 and exhibits are relied for the disposal of the writ petitions and, parties will be referred to accordingly.

(2.) Material facts are as follows:- Petitioner submitted an application for grant of a regular permit to operate service on the route Kongorpilly - Kottuvally Bridge - Aluva Via; Koonammavu and Alangad with between Kodungalloor and Vyttila via; Edappally by pass Chettibhagom, Varappuzha Bridge, in terms of the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A rough sketch of the route and a true copy of the timings suggested by the petitioner along with the application are produced as Exts.P1 and P2. The said application was considered by the first respondent on 22.12.2015 and adjourned on the reasoning that the vehicle offered by the petitioner is more than five years in model and accordingly, directed the petitioner to propose a new time schedule avoiding rest time at Edappally and by providing entire trips to Kottuvally and Kongorpilly, and to produce current records of suitable stage carriage not older than five years from the date of its original registration, evident from Ext.P3.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, with respect to the model of the vehicle, petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.11529/2016 before this Court and as per Ext.P4 interim order directed the second respondent to consider the temporary permit application and issue temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KL-7/AV 3318 for intervals of two months pending writ petition, within a period of two weeks. With regard to the suggestion of submission of time schedule, petitioner suggested modified timings avoiding rest time at Edappally and with regard to the suggestion regarding entire trips to Kottuvally and Kongorpilly it was brought to the notice of the authority that such operation is impossible and will cause only inconvenience to the travelling public. That Kottuvally and Kongorpilly lies on entirely different sectors and touching both places in every trip will only cause inconvenience and hardship to the passengers. True copy of modified timing submitted by the petitioner is produced as Ext.P5. Ext.P5 modified timing along with Exts.P4 interim order passed by this Court were considered by the first respondent, and being satisfied, accepted the modified proposal and time schedule submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext.P3. Hence, first respondent directed the second respondent to comply Ext.P4 order of this Court and issue temporary permit, evident from Ext.P6 subject to settlement of timings.