IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1646 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19936/2008 Dated 02/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ JOBY JACOB, NAMBUDAKATH HOUSE, MEENNILAVU, MANCOMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIOINAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.BABY AUGUSTINE, MADAKKAL HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1646 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant who is a Stage Carriage Operator, had filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam contending inter alia, that some of the 'time slots' which were available and for which a request had been made by him for allotment, were not properly considered by the Tribunal. 2. In fact, this is the second round litigation in respect of the same issue. On an earlier occasion, a Division Bench of this Court had allowed the plea made by the appellant and directed the Tribunal to re-consider the matter after affording all parties concerned an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the Tribunal had passed the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant invites our attention to Ext.P11 order and contends that the primary issue or grievance of the appellant has not been considered by the Tribunal. We are unable to agree. It is seen from Ext.P11 that the Tribunal had in fact W.A.No.1646/2008 -2- considered the rival contentions. To be specific, in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the Tribunal had referred to the time slots which were in fact pointed out or highlighted by the appellant. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 5 thus: “ The learned counsel for the petitioner, of course pointed out that the service of the third respondent reaches Kaloor bus stand at 2.42 p.m. and therefore he could be given a time slot at 5.50 p.m. for his evening service. But as rightly pointed out by the third respondent, a number of services including city services, are operating between Kaloor and Nadakkavu, the time gap of which trips are less than two minutes. In fact, after the remand of the case by the Hon'ble High Court, the learned counsel for the third respondent filed a counter affidavit enclosing the time slots allotted to several other services between Kaloor and Nadakkavu during the evening hours. As per the affidavit filed by the third respondent, other services are given time slots at 5.28 p.m., 5.30 p.m. (two services), 5.35 p.m., 5.40 p.m. (two services), 5.45 p.m. 5.47 p.m., 5.48 p.m., 5.52 p.m., 5.55 p.m, 6 p.m. (two services), 6.07 p.m. and 6.10 p.m. There is no dispute that the common sector between Kaloor and Nadakkavu is a well served sector. This being the position, there is absolutely no reason to distrust the affidavit sworn to by the third respondent in this regard.” 4. The learned Single Judge, while considering the W.A.No.1646/2008 -3- contentions raised by the appellant had noted the above aspects as well. The Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which are the two fact finding authorities had heard the appellant and the rival operators. It was thereafter that the said authorities had taken the decision in the matter. As long as no vitiating circumstance has been pointed out with regard to the decision making process, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not interfere with a reasoned order passed by statutory fact finding authorities. 5. The learned Single Judge has refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS