IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 688 of 2009(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- G.ANUP, S/O. GOPINATHA KURUP RESIDING AT THAMARAYATHU, MANNAM NAGAR, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. LEKHA BHASKAR, MOHANA BHAVANAM, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANADU PO, MAVELIKKARA. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO.688 OF 2009 (F) ==================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application for permit on the route mentioned in Ext.P1. That was rejected on the ground that the route applied for was a scheme covered area. Appeal filed was rejected by Ext.P2 judgment dated 5th of December, 2007. According to the petitioner, the route covered by Exts. P3 and P4 are the same. Petitioner now submits that Exts. P1 and P2 are contradictory to Ext.P4 where the Tribunal has ordered grant of permit in respect of the very same route. 2. In my view, the petitioner is bound to fail. This is for the reason that petitioner is now seeking to quash Ext.P1 dated 23/8/07 and Ext.P2 dated 5/12/2007. If the petitioner was aggrieved by these proceedings, he should have challenged those proceedings within a reasonable time. This was not done. Therefore, on the ground of delay and latches, this writ petition is bound to fail. 3. In so far as the petitioner's claim that since by Ext.P4, WPC 688/09 :2 : Tribunal has directed grant of permit, he is entitled to similar treatment, in my view, petitioner having chosen not to challenge Exts. P1 or P2 within a reasonable time, cannot now be permitted to raise that contention. Even otherwise, in order to claim the benefit of a judgment also, the conduct of a party is relevant and delay in this context disentitles the petitioner for the relief claimed. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp