IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17562 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, POST THENUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. SUNIL KRISHNAN, CHEMMUKKE KALAM, P.O.MANKARA, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON FOR R3 SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.17562 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, a holder of a regular stage carriage permit, has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, proposing to consider the request made by the 3rd respondent for settlement of timings, relatable to a regular stage carriage permit granted to the 3rd respondent , to operate on the route Keralassery-Palakkad. The main dispute raised in this writ petition relates to the question as to whether there was delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in producing the current records of the vehicle and consequently whether the permit already granted in his favour stood revoked in terms of Rule 159 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein, reference is, inter alia made to the contention raised by the 3rd respondent that the current records of the vehicle was actually produced even W.P ( C) No.17562 of 2009 2 at the stage of grant of a permit. Reference is also made to an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the grant of the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent and an appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Judge holding that the challenge by a rival operator is not maintainable was also dismissed. I am satisfied that the issue herein is substantially the same as the one raised in Ext.R3(a) and Ext.R3(b). Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed by this court shall stand vacated. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.17562 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.17562 of 2009 4