IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2016 of 2009(R) ---------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WPC NO.18206/09 DT.14.8.2009) APPELLANT(S): (2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION) --------------------------------------------------- RAJAMMA MATHUNNIPANICKER, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 420, RAMANKULANGARA KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM 691 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SHRI.NOBLE MATHEW R2 BY SHRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.2016 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 29th September 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the second respondent in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the second respondent herein. The second respondent was operating a stage carriage on the route Kollam-Anchal. While so, the appellant was granted a permit on the route Elavaramkuzhy-Kollam Andamukkam. The said permit was issued after settling the time schedule, by the Secretary, RTA, Kollam by Annexure-A1 order dated 02.11.2006. The said vehicle, during its first trip, will pass through Anchal at 8.10. The said time schedule was adversely affecting the 2nd respondent. So, according to it, it has filed a representation against Annexure A1 on 30.08.2006, but no action was taken on it. Recently, the appellant moved for variation of his time schedule contained in Annexure A1. On coming to know of the same, the 2nd respondent filed Ext.P1 representation dated 15.06.2009, objecting to the time schedule granted to the appellant as per Annexure A1. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following relief : WA No.2016/09 2 “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 before making any endeavour to revise the timings of the 2nd respondent's service operating on the route Elavaramkuzhy-Kollam which stage carriage is bearing Registration No.KL-2/Z-4293.” 2. Though the appellant filed a counter affidavit and resisted the above prayer, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Secretary, RTA to consider Ext.P1 while considering the application filed by the appellant for variation of his time schedule. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this appeal is filed. According to the appellant, the time schedule granted as per Annexure A1 has become final. The 2nd respondent did not file any revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the said proceedings. Therefore, the present representation Ext.P1, seeking modification of Annexure A1, is not maintainable in law. If that be so, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider Ext.P10 is also not sustainable, it is submitted. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. WA No.2016/09 3 4. Since Annexure A1 has become final, the representation Ext.P1, filed seeking modification of it, has only to be rejected. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider that representation is not sustainable in law. This court can issue a direction to the 1st respondent, if it is shown that he has got a statutory duty to consider Ext.P1 and the 2nd respondent has got a legal right to the performance of that duty by the 1st respondent. In the absence of any right-duty correlation, the direction of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is reversed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA No.2016/09 4 WA No.2016/09 5