The petitioner, a stage carriage operator has been granted a regular permit to conduct services on the route Payyavoor – Taliparamba Via Chamathachal, Ulikkal, Thirur, Kanhileri, Kaniyar vayal, Sreekandapuram, Irikkur, Iritty for a period of 5 years from the date of issue. Ext.P2 is the decision of the first respondent dated 26.11.2012. The permit has been granted subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner contends that though the timing conference had been conducted on many occasions, the timings have not been settled and the permit has not been issued to him, till date. Consequently, 1½ years have elapsed and he is not able to operate the service, for which, he has been granted the regular permit. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of a direction to the respondents to permit him to operate on the basis of the timings proposed by him subject to the objections of the rival operators and the settlement of timings.
2. According to the Government Pleader, it was not due to any fault on the part of the authorities that the timings have not been settled so far. The timing conference had been convened four times but the timings could not be settled because of serious objections raised by the other operators. Therefore, a fresh timing conference is proposed to be convened. Only at the timing conference, the timings of the petitioner can be settled.
3. Though the petitioner has been granted a regular permit as far back as on 26.11.2012, his timings have not been settled till date. For the said reason, his permit has not been issued to him. Without being issued a permit to the petitioner he is not able to operate his services. The complaint of the petitioner is that his vehicle is remaining idle, causing loss and hardships to him. Apart from that, hardships are caused to the travelling public also. Once a permit is issued, it is only appropriate that the timings are settled within a short time thereafter. In the present case, though the permit was issued on 26.11.2012, for a past more than 1½ years, the timings of the petitioner have not been settled. The delay cannot be justified for any reason. There is absolutely no justification for the omission on the part of the authorities, who have not settled the timings and issued the permit within a reasonable time.
4. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for. The petitioner can operate the services only on the basis of a set of settled timings. It is only proper in the circumstances that the petitioner is permitted to conduct services on the basis of the timings proposed by him, subject to the objections of the other operators. Therefore, this Writ Petition is ordered as follows :-
(i) The 2nd respondent shall issue the regular permit that has been granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and permit him to conduct services in accordance with the timings proposed by him as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) The timings of the petitioner shall be subject to the objections of the other operators, who are conducting services on the route as well as subject to the settlement of his timings at a properly convened timing conference.
(iii) Until the timings of the petitioner are settled in accordance with law and with the above directions, he shall operate his services on the basis of the timings proposed by him.
(iv) The timings of the petitioner's services shall be settled by convening a timing conference as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
Jvt