IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32847 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI,AGED 60, S/O.LATE K.C.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,KARIPPAL MANA, NEDUMPURA,CHERUTHURUTHY,TRICHUR. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON MR.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,TRICHUR. 3. SRI.SHINJITH.P.S,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS SIRIJITH),S/O.SADASIVAN, PAMPUMKATTIL HOUSE,P.O.CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. 4. C.A.DAVIS,CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O.CHETTUPUZHA,TRICHUR. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMEN PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 32847 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Olavakkod - Mundur. He has been issued Ext.P1 timings for his service. The 3rd respondent was granted a permit as per Ext.P4 proceedings to operate on the route Kulappully - Medical College - Guruvayoor subject to settlement of timings. Consequent to orders in W.P(C) No. 636 of 2008, by Ext.P4 the timings of the 3rd respondent's service was settled after a timing conference held for the same. The petitioner filed M.V.A.R.P. No. 240/08 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P4 which was dismissed by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P10 orders in this writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. In Ext.P10, the Tribunal has dealt with the issues involved thus: “5. At the outset, I may point out that the schedule of timings in respect of the service of the 3rd respondent was settled in a well attended timing W.P(C) No. 32847 of 2009 -2- conference convened by the 2nd respondent on 27.05.2008, and that too on the specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court. If the records produced by the 2nd respondent before this Tribunal are anything to go by, the timing conference in question was attended by more than sixty operators on the route. The timing conference convened on 27.05.2008 was also duly notified. The revision petitioner in M.V.A.R.P. 240/2008 himself admitted that his agent attended that timing conference. In regard to the said timing conference, it is not at all possible to hold that there is non-observance of statutory requirements under Rule 212(3) of the KMV Rules or violation of the principles of natural justice. For that short reason I hold that these revision petitions filed u/s. 90 of the M.V.Act have no legs to stand upon. 6. As regards the grievance of the petitioners, in respect of the disputed time slots allotted to the 3rd respondent, I am convinced that the case put forward by the petitioners is not genuine. It is to be remembered that the petitioner in M.V.A.R.P. No. 240/2008 is getting a clear time gap of four minutes in respect of his departure time from Wadakkanchery at 8.53 a.m. Similarly the petitioner in M.V.A.R.P. No. 294/2008 is getting a time gap of 6 minutes in respect of his departure time from Wadakkancherry at 5.30 p.m. In relation to such an oversaturated or well served route, the time gaps which the petitioners are getting are quite adequate. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioners are not affected parties, thereby to challenge the impugned order of the 2nd respondent invoking the powers of this Tribunal u/s 90 of the M.V.Act. On an assessment of the factual situation obtaining in these cases, I find that these petitions are devoid of any merit and are filed as experimental litigations. In any view of the matter, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent is not liable to be interfered with u/s. 90 of the M.V. Act. In the result, both these revision petitions fail and are hence dismissed.” On a reading of the same, I do not find anything wrong with the findings of the Tribunal. I am not sitting in appeal on the W.P(C) No. 32847 of 2009 -3- order of the Tribunal. I can interfere with the same only if the findings therein is in anyway perverse. I have no reason to hold that the findings in Ext.P4 are perverse. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs