IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16361 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMAKRISHNAN.M., MELEPATT HOUSE, AMAYUR, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16361 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner operates a regular stage carriage bearing registration No.Kl-9/K565, on the route Pattambi-Kayiliyad and the timings in relation to the same was settled as per Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the Secretary has settled the timings by Ext.P2 after regular permit was granted by the RTA, Palakkad. But, there was a variation in respect of commencement from Kayiliyad to Koppam via Puthiyaroad at 12.02 PM. This could have proceeded via Vallapuzha and Malayankavu, which was a route granted by the Regional Transport Authority. A new entrant to the field took note of this variation and complained that the petitioner was not operating his vehicle on the route granted by the Regional Transport Authority. A check report was drawn up and the petitioner's permit was cancelled under Ext.P3. W.P.(C).No.16361 of 2009 :: 2 :: The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, wherein he expressed his willingness to compound the offence. The tribunal set aside the cancellation of the permit and directed the Regional Transport Authority, to permit the petitioner to compound the offence. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, after remand, again affirmed its earlier decision vide Ext.P5 on the premise that the vehicle was not used in accordance with the permit. This was again challenged by the petitioner before the tribunal. The tribunal by Ext.P7 set aside Ext.P5 and directed the Regional Transport Authority, to proceed in terms of its earlier judgment. The petitioner's grievance is that he is not now in a position to operate either in accordance with the varied permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority as per Ext.P5 or as per the timings settled as per Ext.P2, which was, in effect, set aside. Hence this writ petition. W.P.(C).No.16361 of 2009 :: 3 :: 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the timings will be settled in accordance with the permit Ext.P1. This shall be done as early as possible. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to settle the timings in conformity with Ext.P1 permit, taking note of Ext.P7 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge