IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34159 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GANESH PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, SANDHYA NIVAS, KUDLU, R.D.NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. SRI.SAKKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.S.A.WAHAB, MEHABOOB MANIL, ANANGOOR P.O. VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 34159 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the RTA as also Ext.P7 notice for convening a timing conference. Ext.P2 is the order of the Tribunal whereby the appeal against the order of the RTA rejecting the application filed by the 3rd respondent for a regular permit was allowed and the RTA was directed to issue a permit. Ext.P3 is the order of the RTA allowing the application for permit as directed by the STAT. Ext.P7 is the timing conference convened for issuing the permit. It is settled law that an existing operator has no locus standi to challenge the grant of a permit to another operator, as laid down the decision in Binu Chacho v. RTA Pathanamthitta [2006(2) KLT 172]. That being so, the petitioner's writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal directing grant of a regular permit to the 3rd respondent is not maintainable under law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge