IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11137 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SRI.K.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KAMU HAJI, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANOOR P.O., KALADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11137 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-10/M 5298. He had applied for the issue of a permit to operate on the route Kuttipuram-Tirur(via) Chembikkal, Thirunnavaya, Codackal, Thuprangode, Alathiyur and B.P.Angadi. The permit was granted by the first respondent on 22.7.2009 subject to settlement of timings. 2. Pursuant to the above, a timing conference was conducted on 9.3.2010 and the timings of the petitioner were settled after hearing the other operators on the route also. According to the petitioner, he was not properly heard during the timing conference. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 request to the first respondent. As per Ext.P2, he has requested the second respondent to cancel the timings alloted to him on 9.3.2010 and to issue the timings proposed by him or to consider the proposed timings in a fresh timing conference. His complaint is that no orders have been passed on Ext.P2 till date. Therefore, he prays for appropriate directions for an expeditious wpc No.11137/2010 2 disposal of Ext.P2. 3. The prayers sought for in Ext.P2 are not maintainable in law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the timings allotted to him, the petitioner has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has the power to review the timings or to cancel the same for the reasons set out in Ext.P2. Therefore, the directions sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the timings allotted to him in accordance with law, in properly instituted proceedings. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/