IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4272 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU KURIEN, S/O. KURIEN, AGED 48 YEARS, POTTAMMEL HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU.P.O., KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.4288/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 4272 & 4288 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in these writ petitions is a stage carriage operator operating stage carriages on the route Mundayamparambu Temple – Valathodu and Uruppumkutty – Manikkadavu. The permit in W.P.(C) No.4272 of 2011 was issued on 26.7.2010 and the permit in W.P.(C) No.4288 of 2011 was issued on 6.10.2009, after settlement of timings. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application in both cases on 3.2.2011 and 18.1.2011 respectively before the respondent requesting for revision of timings on the ground that there is clash of timings between his stage carriages and other stage carriages. In my opinion, as the petitioner has no case in Ext.P1 application that he is forced to seek a revision of his own timings on account of the change in circumstances and introduction of subsequent services, he has to challenge the order settling the timings in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal impleading the rival operators who are operating on the same set of timings. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order settling the timings in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.