IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19862 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.J.JOSEPH, THOMMANMMAVUNKAL, NEERIKKADU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. PHILIP C.JOHN, CHIRAKKAL, LAKKATTOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY SENIOR GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.19862 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting services on the route Neerikkadu- Uzhavoor via Mannarkadu - Kottayam. According to the petitioner, Mannarkadu - Kottayam route comes within the notified Scheme, which provides for the conduct of services only by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (`KSRTC' for short). Therefore, according to the petitioner, no private operator could be granted permit on the said route. In spite of the above, the second respondent has been granted a permit as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Consequently, the petitioner is aggrieved generally and specially for the reason that he has to face unnecessary competition from the KSRTC as well as from the second respondent since the time difference between the different services is only negligible. It is the further case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 order has been passed without collecting the required fee, which amounts to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, he prays for setting aside Exts.P1 and P2. Wpc 19862/2010 2 2. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Binu Chacko V. RTA, Pathanamthitta ( 2006(2) KLT 172 (F.B)) that an existing operator cannot challenge the grant of a permit to another operator on the ground that it prejudicially affects his rights. In the normal circumstances, his right is confined to objecting to the settlement of timings alone. In view of the binding dictum of the Full Bench, the challenge in this writ petition has to fail. Even if it is assumed that an impropriety has been committed by the authority in issuing Ext.P2, without insisting on payment of the requisite fee, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the grant of the said permit. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the timings settled in favour of the second respondent, he can seek for a revision of his timings. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk