IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1798 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, 5/341, MANGALODAYAM, MULAMTHURUTHY, KARIKKODU. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MOOVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 4. SAMON.K.A., S/O.K.V.ELIAS, 28 YEARS, KURYSINGAL HOUSE, MORAKKALA. 5. VINU VARGHESE, S/O.VARUGHESE, VATTOTHURUTHUMMEL, ERUMELI KARA, KUMARAPURAM P.O. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK - R4 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1798/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT WAS GRANTED BY THE DECISION OF RTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF SCHEDULE OF TIMING. EXT.P3: COPY OF TIMING ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS ORDER NO.22367/2007 DTD. 25/07/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED ON 25/07/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF M.V.A.R.P.NO.371/2007 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.C6-19836/2004/EM DTD. 20/09/2004 GRANTING TIME SCHEDULE TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF TIME SCHEDULE OF 5TH RESPONDENT SERVICE AS PER ORDER DTD.26/04/86. EXT.P9: COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DTD. 31/10/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DTD. 13/11/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.1798/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is a proposal of timing submitted by the petitioner along with an application for regular permit. Subsequently, permit was granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the RTA, subject to settlement of timings. Thereafter, timing was settled as per Ext.P3. Aggrieved by the timing, the petitioner filed revision before the STAT and that was dismissed by Ext.P9. It is challenging Ext.P9, the writ petition is filed. 2. Going by the reasoning given by the Tribunal, I feel that this Court will not be justified in upsetting the same. However, having regard to the difficulties expressed by the petitioner, I am satisfied that liberty shall be given to the petitioner to file a fresh application for revision of his timings. 2 3. Accordingly, it is directed that, it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the 3rd respondent seeking revision of his timings and if such an application is filed, untrammeled by the findings in Exts.P3 and P9, fresh orders shall be passed, after hearing all affected parties. 4. The petitioner submits that he will be filing an application within two weeks. It is directed that, if such an application is received, final decision will be taken within two months thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3