IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37499 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37499 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. The petitioner filed a petition for allotment of vacant timings of another stage carriage, which had surrendered its permit. That petition was rejected by the Secretary, R.T.A by Ext. P5 order. The petitioner challenged the same in M.V.A.R.P.No. 405/2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext. P11 order, that revision was dismissed. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P11 orders. 2. In Ext. P5, the petitioner's request was rejected on the following reasons: “1. The KSRTC strongly objected the time revision and requested not to conduct time revision in the notified routes in which a portion of the route overlap notified sector. 2. The permit holder of KL 10/G 8667 objected the departure timing from Manjeri at 11.25 . It is the same time of KL 10/G 8667. 3. The Permit Holder of KL 11/Q 6515 objected the departure time 2.50 from Vengara since the KL 11/Q 6515 is conducting service with the same time. 3. The permit holder of S/C KL 10/R 7352 objected 3.20. Departure time from Malappuram since it is the same time of KL 10/$ 7352.” Therefore, without impleading the permit holders of KL 10/G 8667, KL 11/Q 6515 and S/C KL 10/R 7352, the petitioner could not have filed a revision petition. In fact, in Ext. P11 order, the first ground for dismissing the revision petition is that the revision is bad for non- jointer of those parties. That reason alone is sufficient to reject the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the other contentions raised by the petitioner in so far as W.P.C. No. 37499/2008. -: 2 :- on that ground alone Ext. P11 is perfectly sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.