IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 14801 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.SANTHI, KOCHUTHOPPIL, PATTOLI MARKET P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. K.ANILAKUMARI, PAYIKKATTIKIZHAKKATHIL, ANANDA BHAVAN, NADUVILILEMURI, PADANILAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 14801/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.28707/03 DT. 4.9.03. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2004. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.5.2003. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.9.2004. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP 204/04 DATED 1.12.2004. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.3119/05 DT. 28.1.05. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.535/05 DATED 31.8.2005. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2005. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2005. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.76/2006 DT. 11.5.06. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14801 OF 2006-K ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Kanakakkunnu – Adoor. One Rajesh Ganga, the predecessor-in- interest of the 3rd respondent was another stage carriage operator, operating on the route Kanakakkunnu – Athumbunkulam. These routes have a common sector of 24 kms from Kanakakkunu to Para Junction. The above said Rajesh Ganga moved the Secretary, R.T.A., for revision of the petitioner's time schedule. This Court by Ext.P1 judgment, directed the Secretary, R.T.A., to consider that representation. When the matter was considered pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation. After hearing both sides, the Secretary, R.T.A issued Ext.P4 time schedule, as per proceedings dated 16.9.2004. Ext.P3 was the original time schedule of the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner preferred M.V.A.R.P. No.204/2004 before the State Transport Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The said revision was disposed of by Ext.P5 order, directing the Secretary, WPC 14801/06 2 R.T.A to modify two time slots. There was s direction to reduce the stay time at Kayamkulam. It was also ordered to give more time gap between the service of the petitioner and that of Rajesh Ganga, when they start from Kayamkulam. As per Ext.P4 time schedule, the petitioner was to start from Kanakakkunnu at 2.07 p.m. The said time was to be modified to give more time gap. The aggrieved petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order of the S.T.A.T before this Court, by filing W.P.(C) No.3119/2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P6 judgment. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. But, the petitioner was given liberty to represent, if she has got any other grievance concerning Ext.P4. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation, requesting the Secretary, R.T.A., to treat Ext.P2 filed by her as the representation submitted pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. The Secretary reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P9 proceedings dated 28.12.2005, modifying the time schedule of the petitioner's vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed M.V.A.R.P. No.76/2006 before the S.T.A.T., Ernakulam. WPC 14801/06 3 The said revision was dismissed by Ext.P10 order, on the ground that the petitioner did not raise any specific grievance as to any particular time slot in Ext.P9 and that she has raised only general allegations. The Tribunal also declined to entertain such vague allegations. 2. I notice that to dispel the above ground taken by the S.T.A.T., to dismiss the revision, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the revision petition nor raised any specific ground in this writ petition, concerning the finding of the S.T.A.T that her grievances are vague and general in nature. In view of the above position, I find that no ground has been made out, warranting interference with Ext.P10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 19th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/