IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1731 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE SECRETARY, QUILON AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.797, KADAMPANAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. SIVADASAN PILLA, CHERUVILATH VEEDU, KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 4. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ARAMATHU MADAM, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 & 4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1731/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 21.12.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 2.2.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT 19.4.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DT.20.07.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.158/07 DT 5.10.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 3.11.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION 31140/07 DT 10.10.2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.31140/07 DT 16.11.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1731 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order passed by the STAT is under challenge. 2. Against Ext.P2 timings settled in favour of the petitioner, 3rd respondent filed Ext.P3 revision before the Tribunal and that revision was allowed by Ext.P5 order, setting aside Ext.P2 and directing settlement of timings by the Secretary, RTA and also permitting the petitioner to ply the vehicle in the meanwhile based on the timing as settled in Ext.P2. A reading of Ext.P5 order shows that admittedly no timing conference was convened subsequent to the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the aforesaid admitted factual position, all that the STAT has done is that it has applied the law laid down by this court in Somarajan v. R.T.A. Ernakulam (2006(4) KLT 628). In my view, in view of the admitted facts available as disclosed from Ext.P5, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment applies to the case in question and therefore the view taken by the STAT in Ext.P5 is unassailable. Writ petition deserves only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp