IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 395 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37609/2008 Dated 22/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- SULAIMAN, AGED 58, S/O. KUNHI SAHIB, K.S. MANZIL, THIRUWILWAMALA P.O., TRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.395 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route Thiruwilwamala - Alathur. The permit was issued as per Ext.P1 proceedings with the time schedule annexed to it. A reading of the said proceedings would show that the timings were settled , unanimously, in the presence of 45 enroute operators. Even then, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging Ext.P1. The Tribunal dismissed it by Ext.P3 order. Challenging Exts.P1 and P3, the writ petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that Ext.P1 timings were settled as per the unanimous decision in a timing conference. We find no reason to take a different view in this matter. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, in fact, it was not an unanimous W.A.No.395/2009 2 decision and he was having grievance against the time schedule. But, we notice that, in Ext.P2 revision petition, he does not dispute the statement in Ext.P1 that the time schedule annexed to it is the result of a unanimous decision. If the said statement in Ext.P1 was wrong, the petitioner should have specifically pleaded so in Ext.P2. In the absence of any pleadings to that effect in Ext.P2 revision, we have to take that the statement mentioned above contained in Ext.P1 is correct. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. But, the dismissal of the appeal will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to move for modification of the time schedule, based on the changed circumstances on the route. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps