IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1496 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19918/2011 Dated 11/08/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. FAISAL, OYASIS, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. NISHI RAJEEV, ADUNGLASSERY, VALIYAKADA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 3. VIJAYANAD, ANANDABHAVAN, KODUMON, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. V. RATHEESH, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, MELEVETTOOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695141. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1496 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellants are stated as aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge; whereby interference was declined with the proceeding finalised by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P11, in respect of the settlement of the settlement of timings of the concerned stage carriages. 2. The appellants are operators of various stage carriages, whose timings have already been settled by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3. The 2nd respondent, who is another stage carriage operator, wanted to have revision of his timings in respect of vehicle No.KCT 3839. Accordingly, he filed Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent to revise the timings and subsequently approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10542 of 2009. Pursuant to the verdict therein, the matter was considered and a fresh set of timings was allotted by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P5. Still being aggrieved, the matter was taken up in revision under W.A. No. 1496 of 2011 -:2:- Section 90 of the M.V. Act, before the Tribunal by filing Ext.P6 revision petition accompanied by Ext.P7 petition to condone the delay in filing the same. After considering the matter, the Tribunal passed Ext.P10 order, whereby direction was given to the 1st respondent to have the matter considered and finalised as specified therein. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P10, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent, who passed Ext.P11 order, whereby the relief sought for by the 2nd respondent was virtually granted. This made the appellants aggrieved, who filed an application before the 1st respondent for redressal of the grievance, which, however did not turn to be fruitful, as discernible from Ext.P12. It was in the said circumstance, that the appellants chose to file the instant writ petition. 4. After considering the facts and figures, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that Ext.P11 order was passed by the 1st respondent in tune with the relevant provisions of law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well, though the same was not W.A. No. 1496 of 2011 -:3:- actually made use of. 5. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in this regard in paragraph 2 are not seen rebutted in the memorandum of appeal. We find that there is no tenable ground to interfere with the findings and observations given by the learned Single Judge. We are also of the opinion that, if at all the appellants were aggrieved in any manner, it was for them to have the matter challenged by availing the statutory remedy. In the above circumstance, no interference is warranted. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that all the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal are left open. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb