IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 538 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.688/2009 Dated 15/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------- G. ANUP, S/O. GOPINATHA KURUP, RESIDING AT THAMARAYATHU MANNAM NAGAR, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. LEKHA BHASKAR, MOHANA BHAVANAM, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA. ADVS. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R4 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 538 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is a stage carriage operator. He submitted an application for regular permit on the circular route Pandalam - Pandalam (via) Kadamankulam, Pazhakulam, Thandavila, Poozhikkad. The application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority for the reason that the proposed route overlaps the nationalized route between Pandalam and Kurampala for a distance of 3.9 Kilometres and the said violation will offend the Kottarakara - Kottayam Nationalisation Scheme. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority is produced as Ext.P1. The appellant filed an appeal, M.V.A.A. No. 628 of 2007, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, challenging Ext.P1 order. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge those orders. While so, he came across Ext.P4 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A. No.19 of 2008 reversing the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. The Regional W.A. NO. 538/2009 2 Transport Authority had rejected the application for permit of the 4th respondent herein on the route Cherickal - Bharanikavu on the ground of overlapping of the route covered by the Nationalisation Scheme Kottarakara - Kottayam. But, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has chosen to allow the appeal as per Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner claims similar direction from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. So, this Writ Petition was filed challenging Exts.P1 and P2 or in the alternative he prayed for quashing Ext.P4. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches. It was held that there was inordinate delay in challenging Exts.P1 and P2. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. O.D. Sivadas submitted that the appellant came to know of Ext.P4 judgment only recently and immediately he had preferred the Writ Petition. We find that it is a poor defence for the delay in filing the Writ Petition. If the petitioner was aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2, he should have filed the Writ Petition soon after the passing of Ext.P2. Finding of some contrary decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal will not enable the petitioner to get over the W.A. NO. 538/2009 3 delay. The challenge against Ext.P4 made by the appellant is unsustainable on the ground of delay as well as lack of standing. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 538/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO. 538/2009 JUDGMENT 28th May, 2009 W.A. NO. 538/2009 5