IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5955 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNEESH.P.V, S/O. KELAPPAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PALLIVALAPPIL, CHOMBALA.P.O, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, P.O. VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. CHAIRMAN, R.T.A VADAKARA, P.O. VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5955 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is basically against Ext.P1, the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent RTA, allowing a Limited Stop Bus Stop at Meethale Mukkali on the route Vatakara- Thalassery. According to the petitioner, the distance between the existing bus stop and the new bus stop shown in Ext.P2 report, based on which Ext.P1 was issued is factually incorrect. It is stated that seeking reconsideration of Ext.P1 he has filed Ext.P3 before the 2 nd respondent. In this writ petition, although I have heard the counsel and gone through the writ petition, I cannot understand in what manner the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 which allows the setting up of a new bus stop. Since the petitioner is not aggrieved by this order, I see no justification to entertain this writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/