IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 669 of 2010(G) PETITIONER(S): 1. T.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, THAZHATHUTHODIYIL, VETTIKUZHA KAVALA, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 508. 2. PHILIP VARGHESE, KOOVAKKATTIL, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN MR. PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE CHAIRMAN (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. SABU THOMAS, PUTHANPURAYIL, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1& R2 BY MR. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)669 No. of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein, who are operating stage carriages in Idukki District, have this writ petition, seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from granting further temporary permits to the third respondent, who operates a stage carriage on the route Karimban-Kattappana touching Nedumkandam, without convening a timing conference as provided under Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 2. The second respondent has issued a temporary permit of 20 days duration by Ext.P3 order dated 28/12/2009, to the third respondent to operate on the route Karimban-Kattappana touching Nedumkandam. Ext.P3 order discloses that a temporary permit was issued, pending consideration of the third respondent's application for a -2- W.P.(C)669 No. of 2010 regular permit, and that it is issued due to the need for additional services during Christmas and the pilgrimage season to Sabarimala. 3. The petitioners are not challenging Ext.P3 order in this writ petition. They also have not pleaded or proved that the timings set out in Ext.P3 order clash with the timings of the their stage carriage buses. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3 order. Further by Ext.P3, only a 20days temporary permit has been issued to the third respondent. It is for respondents 1 and 2 to decide whether the temporary permit should be reissued to the third respondent pending disposal of his application for a regular permit. Even if temporary permits are reissued or a regular permit is issued to the third respondent unless the petitioners are aggrieved by the timings stipulated therein, they cannot be said to be persons who are aggrieved by the grant of such permits. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief -3- W.P.(C)669 No. of 2010 can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, reserving the liberty with the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the timings in the regular permit issued to the third respondent to challenge the settlement of timings in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN (JUDGE) nl