IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1529 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5970/2010 Dated 18/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/3RD PARTY PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SUNDERASAN PILLAI,GIRISH NIVAS, KOTTANKARA,CHANDANATHOPE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,QUILON AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEES,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.797, KADAMPANAD,ADOOR. 2. THE SECRETARY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PATHANAMTHITTA. R2 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1529 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant was not a party to the writ petition, who is stated as aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. As per order dated 06.09.2010 in I.A. No.643 of 2010, leave was granted for filing this Appeal. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that, by virtue of the impugned verdict the writ petitioner has been enabled to have his grievance redressed with regard to the re-settlement of timings, which in fact has quite adversely affected the appellant. Pursuant to the judgment passed, the matter has been considered by the RTA, whereby the Secretary RTA has been directed to reset the timings as specified; which in fact is without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A copy of the proceedings of the RTA has been made available to this Court in the above regard. 3. Now, going by the facts and figures this Court finds WA No. 1529 of 2010 -:2:- that the appellant is very much having a remedy by seeking to review the verdict passed by the very same learned Single Judge, because of the denial of the opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would like to prefer a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Appeal is closed, reserving the rights and liberties of the appellant as above. All the contentions raised by the appellant in the Writ Appeal are left open. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1529 of 2010 -:3:-