1. Petitioners are aggrieved with the variation granted to the third respondent in a route in which the third respondent holds a regular permit. The contention of the petitioners is that the third respondent was in fact having a regular permit, which was granted to his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-10/S 7542. Petitioners contend that the said vehicle was not functional and the route was lying vacant for the last three years.
2. Petitioners were surprised at Ext.P6, which was a notice for settlement of timings of the vehicle KL-10/S 7542, which was fixed on 19.7.2014. Petitioners, on enquiry, found that there is a variation granted as per Ext.P7 by circulation. Petitioners also contend that circulation is resorted to only in cases of emergency and the W.P.(C)No.18268 of 2014 -:2:-
circumstances existing in this case do not warrant such variation by circulation.
3. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent had submitted an application for replacement and a new vehicle has been substituted, the current records of which have been produced. The third respondent also submits that the petitioners have a revisional remedy before the Tribunal, which has not been resorted to.
4. It is to be noticed that the variation itself has been granted to the vehicle KL-10/S 7642 and the conference for settlement of timings was also intimated showing the said vehicle. Even according to the third respondent himself, the said vehicle is not in operation. A subsequent writ petition filed by the third respondent W.P.(C) No.17863 of 2014 is referred to in the counter affidavit of the Government, wherein it was directed that if the third respondent W.P.(C)No.18268 of 2014 -:3:-
produces the current records of the vehicle with valid fitness certificate, the timings would be settled. In such circumstances, the timings would be settled on the varied route only if the petitioners produce the current records of the vehicle, which was sought to be replaced. Without such records or the valid fitness certificate of the vehicle, no settlement of timings could be resorted to; this is so, even as per the direction in W.P.(C)No.17863 of 2014 and the respondent authority shall scrupulously follow such directions. With respect to the variation itself granted as per Ext.P7, it is to be noticed that the same is a revisable order before the Tribunal. The petitioners would have to move such revision before the Tribunal and would have to seek for condonation of delay as they were not aware of such order since it was passed only by circulation. The above writ petition itself was filed on 16.7.2014 and the same is pending till today, which period also deserves to be condoned.
W.P.(C)No.18268 of 2014 -:4:-
Leaving open such remedy available to the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that any settlement of timings granted to the third respondent as per the direction in W.P.(C) No.17863 of 2014 in the varied permit shall depend upon such challenge made by the petitioner. No costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.