IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1223 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14274/2009 Dated 04/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC. ------------------ SREEKALA, PADATHU HOUSE, P.O.KIZHAKKUMMURI, KAKKODI, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN WPC. --------------------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKKODE. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1223 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the registered owner of the Stage Carriage KL-11/R-1215 operating on the route Kunduparamba - Payyankkal. The vehicle was transferred in her favour, pursuant to the decision of the Regional Transport Auhority, Kozhikode, dated 2.3.2009. When she started operation, she found that the timings of her vehicle, which are contained in Ext.P1, are at clash with the time schedule of Stage Carriage KL-11/R-6399. Immediately, she filed Ext.P2 representation before the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode, and thereafter, she filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent R.T.O. to consider her representation. 2. The learned Single Judge found that the time schedules of the petitioner's vehicle and that of the rival operator mentioned above were settled long ago. Therefore, the present request is not maintainable in the light of the relevant rules. If, the W.A.No.1223/2009 2 petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was aggrieved by the time schedule, he should have invoked the revisional remedy available to him before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal and valid. This appeal is filed on the ground that the appellant came to be the owner of the vehicle recently and therefore, she never had an occasion to challenge the time schedule of the rival operator in time. But, if the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest has waived his objection, she is also bound by the said conduct of him. Therefore, the contention raised in this appeal cannot be accepted. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps