IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8184 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C. RAMANKUTTY, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, IRINGATTIRI, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8184 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting regular service on the route Pullankod-Kozhikode as a Limited Stop Ordinary Service with stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-10/V 3667. His timings were fixed on 19.8.2006. While so, he applied for the variation of his permit. His request was granted subject to settlement of timings, as per Ext.P1. Pursuant to Ext.P1 variation, the first respondent convened a timing conference on 15.2.2010. In the timing conference, the timings of the petitioner have been changed. According to the petitioner, the changed timings causes serious prejudice to him. Therefore, he does not want the variation that has been granted or the timings granted to him pursuant to such variation. He seeks permission to operate his services on the basis of his original timings. He has submitted Ext.P2 request before the first respondent and has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction for an early wpc No.8184/2010 2 disposal of the said request. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.P1 by way of revision. The variation was granted and the timings were settled on the request made by the petitioner and therefore, it is pointed out that it is not open to him to withdraw the same. 3. In view of the fact that a statutory remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner, I do not propose to go into the merits of the rival contentions. 4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the respondents before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in revision. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/