IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29749 of 2005(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.B.VINOD, S/O.T.R.BALAN, AGED 26 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R5. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/09/06 IN I.A. 12776/06. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1 TO R4, ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC FOR ADDL.R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.29749/2005-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/06/2004 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 840/2003 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 16/10/2003 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION, MVARP NO. 184/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/08/2005 IN MVARP NO. 184/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 26/03/2005 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPEAL, MVAA NO. 406/2005 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/09/2005 IN APPEAL, MVAA NO. 406/2005 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29749 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. There is no dispute that it is a scheme covered area. The contention is that there are other operators. That will not make the case of the petitioner any better. 2. Be that as it may, since a new scheme has already been introduced, petitioner is free to workout his remedy as per the said scheme. Without prejudice to such liberty, this writ petition is closed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp KURIAN JOSEPH, J. W.P.(C) No. 29749 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T 25.07.2008