The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services with a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-10/U-9543 on the route Pang-Perumanoor via Chendi, Valanchjerry, Padaparamba, Kadampuzha, Kuttipuram on the strength of a regular permit issued to him. He had submitted Ext.P3 objections against the timings issued to KL-10/K-1602, another stage carriage vehicle that is operating on the same route. As per Ext.P4, the objections have been rejected by the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4.
2. According to Adv.Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal who appears for the petitioner, the objection raised in Ext.P3 is that, though the trips have been sanctioned by the RTA as per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent has altered the same, which is not permissible. He also has a contention that, the last trip that departs from Valanchjerry at 7.45 p.m clashes with his trip which departs from the same place at 7.50 p.m. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that, the timings were settled at a timing conference after considering all the objections. Therefore, in the absence of any change in circumstances necessitating a modification of the timings, the objections could not be entertained.
3. This writ petition is posted before me for admission. A W.P.(C) No.13548 of 2014 2 perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the 1st respondent has considered the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner has sought for a modification of the timings settled by Ext.P2. Ext.P2 notices that a timing conference had been conducted, the operators who were conducting services on the route had been heard, the objections were considered and the timings were settled only thereafter. Ext.P3 is the objections submitted by the petitioner. The said objections do not make out any change of circumstances necessitating a settlement of the timings afresh. In view of the above, the reasons stated by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 are justified. Though it is true that Ext.P1 has been issued by the Regional Transport Authority, the timings have not been modified by the 1st respondent according to his own whims and fancies. The timings have been settled at a properly convened timing conference as evident from Ext.P2. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's objections cannot be found fault with.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. Hence this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV