Petitioner is aggrieved with the revision of timings proposed by Ext.P6 notice, issued to revise the timing settled on the second respondent's service as per Ext.P5. Petitioner and the second respondent are stage carriage operators operating on the same route Kurumbnmoozhy-Kottayam. The second respondent who was departing from Kottayam at 6.06 p.m., in the last trip, wanted an advancement and applied for revision of timings. The Secretary, RTA, convened a meeting wherein the objections were heard and Ext.P5 was issued. The objection of the 2nd respondent, is said to have been filed after the settlement of timings by Ext.P5 in collusion with the second respondent. It is trite that once the timings are settled, as per Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the RTA has no right to entertain any objection on that count. It is also W.P.(C)No.11820 of 2013 -:2:-
revealed that the third respondent has filed a revision against Ext.P5 before the Tribunal which is said to be pending. In any event, Ext.P6 cannot be proceeded with. The first respondent cannot revise the timings unless the revision is allowed or there is any change in circumstances which would require such change in timings. The second respondent has a contention that, in fact, the second respondent was not given correct set of timings as per D3 Circular which the second respondent would be entitled to agitate before the appropriate forum.
The writ petition is allowed making it clear that no proceedings shall be taken on Ext.P6.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.