IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29298 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- L.S.A JOY, LAKSHMI VILASAM, THIRUVONAM, KIZHAKKENADA, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SIR. SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, ESWARY NILAYAM, NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29298 /2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OFTHE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S STAGE CARRIAGE BY ORDER DATED 12/07/2004. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S STAGE CARRIAGE BY ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL-05/Q-519. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2/2/2008. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3/3/2008 REJECTING EXHIBIT P3 OBJECTION. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF M.V.A.R.P. NO.97/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST EXHIBIT P2 ORDER. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OFHTE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V. A.R.P. NO.97/2008 DATED 30/7/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29298 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is regarding Exhibit P2 timings granted to the second respondent. Complaining that there is clash in the sector Kavumbhagam – Thattarambalam, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3 objection and that was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that change of circumstance available under section 145(7) of the KMVR has not been made out. Revision petition as per Exhibit P5 also was rejected as per Exhibit P6 order of the Tribunal. On going through Exhibits P4 and P6, I am inclined to agree with these orders on the ground that the petitioner has not made out a case for variation of timings. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that if the present circumstances justify, it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for revision of timings, in which case, the same will be considered by the respondent untrammeled by impugned orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm