IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 24817 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOURALLIOUS, S/O.PETER, CHONKIL POYKAYIL KOCHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PADAPPUTHARA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. SHAHIDA, W/O.BASHEER, SS MANZIL, PARAKKULAM, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 571. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24817 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 18th November, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is an existing stage carriage operator on being aggrieved by the timings allotted to the second respondent. Thus, evidently, the grievance of the petitioner is against the allotment of timings to another stage carriage operator. Admittedly, statutory remedy is available. The petitioner has to search the remedy in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules itself to redress such grievances. Therefore, if the petitioner is desirous to challenge the allotment of timings in respect of the second respondent, necessarily he has to resort to the statutory remedy available for that purpose. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in challenging the proceedings whereby timings were allotted in respect of the second respondent. It is for the petitioner to explain the delay while resorting to such remedy. If such an application is filed necessarily that will also be considered in accordance with law. Subject to the said observation, this writ petition is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS