K. Haridas vs D. T. O. and Others

K. Sreedharan J.

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. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. His vehicle K.RK. 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. A. Kottayam to fix the timings for the service on the route. As per 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 for 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.

On behalf of respondents 1 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. 5kms falls on notified route. As per Rule 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 WA 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 1 and 2 to ply their vehicle in accordance with the timing fixed in Ext. P4 order. Petitioner obtained regular stage carriage permit on the route Kainady-Vellooparamba in respect of his vehicle K.RK 6822. That permit was granted as per the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act). Section 48 of that Act dealt with the grant of stage carriage permits. Clause (3) of that Section provided that the R. T. A. while granting the permit may, subject to any Rules that may be made under the Act attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions including the timetable of the service. The power of the Regional Transport Authority to fix the time-table of the service while granting the permit was subject to the Rules framed in that behalf. Rule 242 of the Rule (Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1961) specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the State or Regional Transport Authority to fix the schedule of timings in respect of stage carriages belonging to the State Transport undertaking. Identical provisions are made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 72 of the 1988 Act deals with grant of stage carriage permits. As per Clause (2) of that Section Regional Transport Authority can attach to the permit time-table of the Vehicle while granting permit. It further provides that the time table to be provided must be subject to any Rules that may be framed under 1988 Act. Rule 212 framed under the 1588 Act specifically ousted the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to prescribe a schedule of timings in respect of stage carriages belonging to State Transport undertakings. Thus it is evident that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction under the 1939 Act or 1988 Act to prescribe a schedule of timings for the stage carriages belonging to the State Transport undertaking. Once the permit is granted to the State Transport undertaking, that undertaking is to prescribe a schedule of timings for their vehicles. In this view of the matter, the third, respondent was clearly in error in suggesting a set of timings in respect of the stage carriages belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as has been done in Ext. P4. Accordingly petitioner cannot ask for the issuance of a-writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to ply their vehicle in conformity with the timings fixed in Ext. P4. If petitioner is aggrieved by the time schedule given to his vehicle on the ground that it clashes with the timings fixed by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of their vehicles he should move the third respondent to have his timings suitably altered'' in accordance with the provisions contained in 1988 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner can file his representation in this regard to the third respondent; If such a representation is filed; the same: should be disposed, of by the third respondent as expeditiously as possible; at any, rate, within one month from the date of its; receipt.

The Original petition is disposed of in the above manner.