IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 7793 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BINU POULOSE, AGED 36, S/O.P.K.POULOSE, PEECHAKKARA HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7793/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION FILED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.6.01. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FILED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.6.2001. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DT 26.10.04. EXT.P4: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM 21 FOR THE MEETING DT 24.2.06. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.2.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALLOTING THE TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONER WHILE ENDORSING VARIATION DT 11.8.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIOENR AS MVARP NO.379/06 DT 11.9.2006. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINING TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF KL-7/C.7099 DT 20.9.2000. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINING TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF KL-7/U.6199 DT 20.9.2000. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF KL- 17/4575 on the IDENTICAL ROUTE ERNAKULAM-KOVILOOR DT 3.6.05. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO.379/06 DT 22.12.2006. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7793 OF 2007 (C) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an operator of Stage Carriage KL-17 8384 on the route Aluva-Koviloor. His grievance is essentially against Ext.P6 order as confirmed by Ext.P11, whereby reduction of running time allegedly sought was not granted. 2. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 order granting variation alone was issued as early as on 11/8/06, I do not think at this distance of time, the grievance in this writ petition need be considered on merits. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed, however making it clear that if the petitioner is so advised, it will be open to him to seek reduction of running time afresh, and if such an application is made, the authority shall consider the same untramelled by Exts. P6 or P11 orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp