IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16726 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.A. DAVIS, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ANTONY,CHIRAMEL HOUSE, ARIMPUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. LIMSON C.K., CHIRAYTH THARAYEL, KANJANI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY G.P. SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.16726 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a stage carriage operator plying his vehicle on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. In respect of variation of the stage carriage owed by him, the petitioner's predecessor in interest approached this Court and obtained Ext.P6 judgment thereby the Regional Transport Authority was directed to consider Ext.P3 in that writ petition in the light of Ext.P2 report in that writ petition and to dispose the same in accordance with law, after hearing all parties concerned expeditiously. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that without complying with the directions in that judgment, a timing conference has been convened, which if allowed to be conducted without passing orders as directed in Ext.P6, would prejudice the right of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing the varied permit to the 3rd respondent without taking note of the decision made pursuant to the directions made in Exhibit P6 judgment in W.P(C).No. 33757/06.” W.P.C.16726/08 2 2. Ext.P6 judgment is dated 3.1.2007, almost one-and-a- half years back. After obtaining that judgment, the petitioner or his predecessor in interest has not done anything to pursue the same to take it to its logical conclusion. The petitioner was sleeping over his right. That being so, the petitioner cannot now come and claim that timing conference shall only be after complying with Ext.P6 judgment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge