IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 26578 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ SAJI ZACHARIA, S/O ZACHARIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, MARY GIRI TRAVELS, VADAKKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. AJITH KUMAR, AISWARYA, PUTHUKADU, THRISSUR. 4. KRISHNAN PARACKAL, S/O VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PARACKAL HOUSE, CHOVANNUMANNU P.O., THRISSUR. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR. ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK – R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).26578/2007-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TIMINGS OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS EFFECTING THE AFORESAID TIMING REVISION MADE IN THE PETITIONER'S TIMINGS. EXT.P3: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE PETITIONERS WAS RE-SCHEDULED EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09/05/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.612/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NUMBER M.V.A.R.P.NO.612/2006 DATED 12/12/2006. FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE PETITION & ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT IN M.P.NO.165 OF 2007 IN MVARP.NO.612/06. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 26578 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 16, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 as confirmed by Ext.P4. 2. The petitioner is an existing operator whose timings were fixed as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that while he was operating on the strength of Ext.P1, in a timing conference that was held on 23.9.2006, his timing was revised and Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that he was operating on the strength of the revised timings and that while so, yet another timing conference was convened by the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2006 and in that timing conference, the timings in Ext.P2 was revised and the original timing schedule was restored. Petitioner contends that, aggrieved by Ext.P3, he filed a revision before the Tribunal as MVARP No.612/2006. That revision was considered and the Tribunal dismissed the same by Ext.P4 order. It is in this background this writ petition is filed. 3. It was contended that the revised timing fixed in Ext.P3 was without notice to the petitioner. First of all, this contention WP(C) 26578/07 2 is not seen raised before the Tribunal when the revision filed by the petitioner was heard and Ext.P4 order was rendered by the Tribunal. That apart, the learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner and the rival operator were given a common notice and that it was only after notice to both of them, the timings were revised as per Ext.P3 order. Therefore, the case of want of notice is only to be rejected. 4. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal in Ext.P4, the only reason stated is that the petitioner was satisfied by the timing as fixed in Ext.P2. The petitioner has not satisfied the Tribunal how he was aggrieved by the impugned timing and the petitioner has no case that the timings are inconvenient. If these are the factual position, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for taking the view it has taken in Ext.P4. On an over all consideration of the issue, I am not satisfied that either Ext.P3 or Ext.P4 warrants any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-