IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16744 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.PRAKASH, AJITHA BHAVAN, MUTHANA P.O., VARKALA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SRI.R.NIKHIL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16744 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/X 2170. He is conducting services on the strength of a regular permit on the route Kaikara Asan Nagar-Puthoor Sanker Nagar (via) Varkala, Nadayara, Palayamkunnu, Paripally, Pallickal, Pakalkuri, Velinalloor, Oyoor, Pooyapally, Odanavattom and Kottarakkara Market Junction. The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent has now granted permit to another stage carriage vehicle on the route Kotarakkara Private Bus stand - Oyoor (via) Thottamukku, Pooyapally, Maruthanpally. The permit granted to the other operator is without properly settling the timings. Therefore, the operation of his service causes clashes with the timings of the petitioner's service. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 request to the first respondent seeking variation of the timings of the other operator. WPC No.16744/2010 2 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner's request is for revision of the timings of another operator, no direction can be issued for the disposal of Ext.P2. If the petitioner so chooses, he is free to make an application for the revision of his own timings. If such a request is made, I have no doubt that the first respondent would consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/