IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10362 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LENIN, AGED 31, S/O.SASI, UNION LEADER (CITU), AUTORICKSHAW STAND, THEKKE NALUVAZHI, NORTH PARUR AND RESIDING AT AYYEPADATH HOUSE, NANDYATHUKUNNAM, NORTH PARUR. BY ADVS. MR.B.RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.REKHA.K.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, NORTH PARUR. 3. BINOJ, S/O.SREENIVASAN, KUDILIL HOUSE, NORTH PARUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 10362 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the grant of a contract carriage permit to the third respondent. Earlier, the third respondent had applied for the grant of a permit for operating his autorickshaw at Naluvazhy Junction, North Paravur. But, the same was objected to by the second respondent on the ground that there was no parking place at the said junction. The rejection of his application was challenged by the third respondent before the STAT by filing an appeal against the same. During the pendency of the appeal, second respondent filed an affidavit expressing his willingness to operate the service from the South Naluvazhy Junction, North Paravur. On the basis of the affidavit, the appeal was disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the request of the third respondent to operate his autorickshaw from South Naluvazhy Junction. It is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent has issued the permit to the third respondent to operate his service from South Naluvazhy without Wpc 10362/2010 2 conducting any proper enquiry. Therefore, he challenged the grant of permit to the third respondent before the STAT in Ext.P2 revision petition. However, the revision petition has been dismissed by the STAT by Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has been described as a union leader by the authorities, he is also an autorickshaw driver who is plying his autorickshaw from the South Naluvazhy Junction. Therefore, according to the petitioner, his rights are also affected by the grant of a permit to the third respondent. 2. As rightly found by the STAT in Ext.P3, the petitioner being a leader of the trade union, has no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit to the third respondent. As a competing permit holder also, he does not have a right to challenge the permit that has been granted to the third respondent. I notice that in Ext.P3, the petitioner has described himself as ` Union leader, C.I.T.U Autorickshaw Stand, Thekkenaluvazhi, N.Parur, rep, by Lenin, S/o.Sasi, Union leader, Ayyepadath(H), Nadyattukunnam, North Parur. This writ petition has also been filed in the said capacity only. No material or evidence has Wpc 10362/2010 3 been placed before me to warrant a conclusion that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the grant of an autorickshaw permit to the third respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the STAT, evidenced herein by Ext.P3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk