IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21430 of 2007(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, THODAVILA VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 6. B.JOHNSON, KOLLANTTAZHIKOM, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21430/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 23.3.95. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE TIME TABLE ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DT. 16.9.06. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 11.1.05 TO THE JOINT R.T.O., KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY DT. 19.8.05. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO R.T.O. KOLLAM DT. 14.2.05. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 27.11.06 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 5.1.07 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , POOYAPPALLY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 21430 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is essentially against the 6th respondent. It is stated that although his timings have been settled, he is operating the service in violation thereof. The petitioner also submits that Exts.P3 to P5 are the complaints the petitioner has made to the authorities concerned in this respect and that there is total inaction on the complaints so made. 2. On instructions the learned Government Pleader submits that on receipt of the complaints, police have intervened and both the parties were summoned and the matter has been sorted out to the satisfaction of the parties. 3 Though the counsel for the petitioner is unaware of this development, still I have no reason to think that the submission made by the Government Pleader is incorrect. If so, this court will not be justified in issuing any order and thereby make it a controversy between the parties. 4. Be that as it may, if the petitioner still has a complaint that WP(C) 21430/07 Page numbers the 6th respondent is violating the timings settled by the RTA, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents, in which case appropriate action will be taken. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-