IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30327 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- I.N.UDAYABHANU, AGED 39, S/O I.C.NARAYANAN, ITTILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, ANUGRAHA, P.O.AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED. 2. S.S. MOHANAN, SHEKARATHIL HOUSE, THOZHUPADAM P.O., CHELAKARA. ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED. 3. M. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 44, S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MANAKKANCHARATH HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM, CHELAKKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. A.. SHEREEF, AGED 50, S/O. ASSANAR RAWTHER, CHEEPARA HOUSE, PATHUKUDY, CHELAKKARA. ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.11.2007 IN I.A. 15270/2007. ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.2.2008 IN I.A. 15337/07. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS ADDL. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 30327/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR DATED 28.6.2004. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 3691/05 DATED 24.2.05. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.8.07. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 30327 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner approached this court for a writ of mandamus to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 request for settlement of timings at the rate of 2 minutes or 2.25 minutes per km. Direction is also sought to command the respondent to issue the permit granted to the petitioner by Ext.P1 to operate on the route in respect of a specific vehicle as expeditiously as possible. 2. Petitioner applied for regular permit and it was granted vide Ext.P1. But the grant was subject to the condition that it will be subject to settlement of timings in accordance with Circular No.3/97. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.3691 of 2005 seeking a direction to settle the timings without insisting on Circular No.3/97 and that came to be disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 judgment it is stated that the court is satisfied that it is not necessary to advert to the disputes and that the condition imposed has to be complied with or it must be challenged by preferring a review petition under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That not having been done, the writ petition will not lie. Thereafter the petitioner prayed for settlement of timings in accordance with the grant expeditiously, WPC.30327/2007. 2 and a direction was given to issue a permit at the earliest. It is thereafter that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when Ext.P2 judgment was rendered, the matter was pending consideration before the Apex Court in SLP and the matter had not attained finality. He fairly concedes that Ext.P3 is not filed under any specific provision. 5. I would think that having regard to Ext.P2 judgment, it may not be open to the petitioner to request the court to direct the authority to consider Ext.P3. It was for the petitioner to work out his remedies in terms of Ext.P2, or to pursue the matter further. Not having been done either, it may not be open to this court to direct the authorities to take a decision on Ext.P3 as it may in fact even run counter to Ext.P2 judgment. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb