IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 574 of 2008(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5566/2008 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ C.L.JOHNSON, CHITILAPPALLY HOUSE MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. S. VENKATACHALAM, H.NO.31/78 LAKSHMI VIHAR, PALAPARAMBU LANE POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R3 SR. G.P. SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.574 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P4 order dated 24.1.2008 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. It was a proceeding settling time schedule of the third respondent's vehicle, on his being granted a variation of that permit, by allowing a cut-trip between Kozhikode and Valanchery. According to the appellant, that time schedule will affect his service. He starts from Kozhikode in the night at 8.45 p.m. If Ext.P4 time schedule is allowed to stand, the third respondent's vehicle will be piloting his vehicle as the said vehicle's departure time from Kozhikode is 8.39 p.m. According to the appellant, though the variation was granted earlier during the existence of the main permit, it was issued after the expiry of the permit and when the application for renewal was pending. The third respondent was operating during the relevant time by a temporary permit issued under Section 87(1)(d) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. So, the appellant's case is that the issuance of the varied permit before renewal of the main permit is without jurisdiction. W.A.No.574/2008 2 If the appellant was aggrieved by Ext.P4, his remedy was to move the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which is manned by a senior District Judge. So, approach to this Court is ill-conceived. The lack of jurisdiction raised is also only a hyper-technical ground. Because of the delay from the part of the official respondents, the issuance of the permit was delayed. That is evident from the materials on record. Subsequently, the permit of the third respondent was, in fact, renewed and he started operation on the regular permit. So, the technical contention regarding lack of jurisdiction is also not maintainable. When an efficacious alternate remedy was available, the appellant approached this Court. It should have been repelled at the threshold by the learned Single Judge. Since we have found, on merits also, that the appellant has no case, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS