IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 10156 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.MANUKUMAR, THYMANGALATHU VEEDU, THOTTAKKADU, ATTINGAL REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.R.MINI, THYMANGALATHU VEEDU, THOTTAKKADU, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. B.MANOHARAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 ADV. SRI.L.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R2 SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10156/2008 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 15/09/1960 ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE DTD. 9/11/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/11/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10156 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a regular stage carriage operator, had objected to an application for revision of timings submitted by the 2nd respondent. It seems that the petitioner was not heard, nor his objections were considered when the timings were settled as per Ext.P2 by the 1st respondent. In the absence of notice to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application Ext.P3. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the remedy insofar as Ext.P2 is concerned, by way of a statutory revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. I find force in this submission. 3. Learned Government Pleader further points out that 140 operators had filed objections and the W.P.(C).NO.10156/08 :: 2 :: objections were heard at a timing conference. The petitioner has a grievance regarding non-consideration of his objections. His remedy is by way of revision. 4. In my view, the remedy of the petitioner vis- a-vis Ext.P2 lies before the revisional court. Writ petition is accordingly closed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//