IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1145 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.37499/2008 Dated 18/12/2008 APPELLANT: WRIT PETITIONER. P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1145 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Anangadi - Manjeri on the strength of a regular permit granted to the stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL 10/V 1555. At the time of issuance of the permit, the time schedule was also settled and issued to him on 23.1.2006. The writ petitioner's attempt made earlier to get the time schedule revised did not succeed because of the intervention of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Again, the writ petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority for revision of the time schedule and approached this Court for a direction to consider the said representation. This Court directed consideration of his representation. In obedience to that direction, by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner's application for revision of the time schedule was considered and rejected. The writ petitioner mainly claimed that the W.A. NO. 1145/2009 2 time schedule allotted to vehicle No. KRM 4239 is vacant and that he may be allotted that time schedule. But, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority found that portions of the time schedule allotted to the said vehicle was filled by other stage carriage services. The said officer also noted the objections raised by the K.S.R.T.C. and other operators, while disposing of the petitioner's application by Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner challenged Ext.P5 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, by Ext.P11 order, dismissed the revision. The Tribunal noted that the objectors before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority were not impleaded in the revision petition. So, it was held that the revision is not maintainable. Apart from that, the Tribunal also examined the merits of the case and concurred with the view taken by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P5 order and dismissed the revision. In the meantime the writ petitioner preferred Ext.P10, a fresh petition for revision of the time schedule before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Challenging Exts.P5 and P11 and also praying for a direction to consider Ext.P10, the present Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge noted that, in the absence of the affected operators on the party array, the revision petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal W.A. NO. 1145/2009 3 and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said judgment, this appeal is filed, raising certain new grounds which do not find a place in the Writ Petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The contentions raised in the appeal cannot be considered, as they were not raised before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1145/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1145/2009 JUDGMENT 15th July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1145/2009 5