Judgment:
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are the following:
2. The appellant was granted a regular permit on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam by the RTA, Kottayam, as per Ext. P2 proceedings dated 01.10.2004. The running time of the appellant's vehicle was 2 minutes per kilo metre. According to the appellant, all other Limited Stop Ordinary Services, similar to that of him, were granted running time @ 2 minutes per kilo metre. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of running time @ 2 minutes per kilo metre, the appellant filed RP No. 237/04 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Annexure A1 order dated 06.11.2004, disposed of the revision, directing the Secretary, RTA, to consider whether all other services on the route are operating with the running time of 2 minutes per kilo metre and if the finding is in favour of the appellant, to grant him also the said running time. In obedience to the said direction, the Secretary, RTA reconsidered the matter and issued Ext. P3 proceedings dated 14.2.2005, reducing the running time of the appellant's service to 2 minutes per kilo metre and also granting him a fresh set of timings. The first respondent challenged Ext. P3 proceedings in revision before the STAT and the STAT, by Annexure A2 order dated 30.11.2005, dismissed the same. While so, the appellant filed Annexure A3 representation before the Secretary, RTA, Kottayam, claiming revision of the time schedule of his service. According to him, there was a service from Ernakulam at 5.47 am and since the halting place of that vehicle was changed, the said time slot was vacant. In Annexure A3 representation, the appellant claimed the said time slot. In Annexure A3, the appellant has also pleaded as follows:
Similarly, in the return trip, the existing departure time from Kottayam is 10.07 am. There is a service at 10.05 am. and the operation of the service with 2 minutes' gap is absolutely without any purpose. Moreover, the service passes through a Railway Gate at Carithas and because of the closing of the gate, invariably there will be clash of timings upto Ernakulam. Therefore, the above timing may be suitably changed by providing more time gap and therefore, I can be allotted 10.10 am.
When Annexure A3 representation was not considered by the Secretary, RTA, the appellant approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 27154/05. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Annexure A4 judgment in the following manner:
The petitioner is operating the stage carriage KL-5/J- 3159 on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam. The time schedule of the said vehicle was last settled on 07.02.2005. He has preferred Ext. P1 application, praying for revision of the said time schedule on 30.07.2005. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed, praying for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P1. If the petitioner's grievance is regarding some inconvenience that was there in the time schedule granted to him in February 2005, Ext. P1 is not maintainable. If any of the timings in the time schedule has to be changed because of any introduction of new service on the route, he may be justified in moving for change of the time schedule, though it is made within five months after the settlement of the time schedule.
2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P1 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected operators, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim put forward by the petitioner in Ext. P1.
It appears, some requests for change of time schedule from other operators were also pending before the Secretary, RTA. There was a direction from this Court at the instance of yet another operator, to consider modification of his time schedule also. The Secretary, RTA, after hearing all the affected operators, by Ext. P4 order dated 20.06.2006, modified the time schedules of various services, including that of the appellant. The departure time of the appellant's service from Ernakulam was modified from 5.40 am. to 6.08 am. and the departure time of the 1st respondent's service from Ernakulam was modified from 6 am. to 5.50 am. Another operator's departure time from Ernakulam was changed from 6.05 am to 6.00 am. The departure time of the appellant's service from Kottayam was changed from 10.07 am. to 10.10 am.
3. The first respondent filed a revision before the STAT, challenging Ext. P4, as per which, the above changes were brought about. Ext. P5 is the copy of the revision petition filed by him. The Tribunal dismissed the said revision by Ext. P7 order dated 13.03.2007. Going by Ext. P7, it would appear that mainly, two contentions were raised before the Tribunal. The first contention was that there was no change of circumstances. But, the Tribunal overruled that objection. The second contention was that the 1st respondent was not heard before passing the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the impugned order itself takes note of the presence of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the second contention was also held to be untenable. Challenging Ext. P7, the Writ Petition was filed.
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Judge took the view that the appellant had approached the Tribunal several times to get the time schedule of his service modified. Suppressing those facts, he obtained Annexure A4 Judgment from this Court and again got the time schedule revised. Therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed with costs. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.
5. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in fact, he never approached the Tribunal, seeking modification of the time schedule of his service as such. He moved the Tribunal only once and that too, for reducing the running time of his service. Of course, as a result of change of the running time, the time schedule of his service was also modified and Ext. P3 proceedings were issued. He later moved for modification of the time schedule, having regard to the change of circumstances mentioned in Annexure A3 representation. So, the learned Single Judge proceeded on a wrong footing that the appellant is in the habit of moving the authorities frequently, for change of time schedule, to suit his convenience, it is submitted.
6. The learned Counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the Secretary, RTA did not enter a finding that there is change of circumstances, warranting modification of the time schedule. He also pointed out that going by Annexure A3, it would appear that the appellant's service is passing through Carithas Railway Gate. In fact, the said submission is unfounded. So, the main ground urged in Annexure A3 for modification of the time schedule was not available and therefore, the Secretary, RTA was not justified in granting modification of the time schedule as was done under Ext. P4, it is contended. In answer, the learned Counsel for the appellant clarified that the appellant's rival's service is passing through Carithas Railway Gate and the same is evident from Annexure A3.
7. We notice that as per Annexure A4, this Court did not issue any direction to modify the time schedule of the appellant's service. It only directed to consider his application for revision of the time schedule in accordance with law. In the said Judgment, it was specifically observed that if the petitioner's grievance is regarding some inconvenience that was there in the time schedule granted to him in February 2005, his claim for modification of the time schedule was not justified. In other words, if only there is some change of circumstances, the appellant was entitled to get modification of his time schedule. It was so hinted in Annexure A4 judgment also. But, we find that in Ext. P4, there is no such finding entered by the Secretary, RTA and he proceeded on the footing that because of the direction of this Court, he is bound to modify the time schedule. So, Ext. P4 suffers from a jurisdictional error, which the Tribunal failed to notice. Therefore, we are inclined to sustain the interference made by the learned Single Judge, but, on a different ground.
8. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that it is only appropriate to remit the matter to the Secretary, RTA, Kottayam, to reconsider Annexure A3 representation and also other similar representations pending at that time, before him. The Secretary, RTA, Kottayam shall hear the appellant, the 1st respondent and other affected operators and pass a fresh order in the matter. The time schedule of the appellant and others need be modified, if only there is change of circumstance, warranting the same. Suppose there are other recent supervening circumstances like default of some service, the parties can bring it to the notice of the Secretary, RTA and he shall take into account such factors, while a decision is taken in the matter. Otherwise, the revision of timings made in 2009, based on a petition filed in July 2005 will become meaningless. The Secretary, RTA, Kottayam shall take a decision in the matter within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Judgment. Till such time, the time schedule granted to various operators as per Ext. P4 will continue to remain in force.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. Needless to say, the direction to pay costs, is vacated.