IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17173 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNNY ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL, PRIYADARSINI, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.RAJESH K.R., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, T.V.PURAM, VAIKOM. MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17173/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the TIMINGS OF THE PETITIONER'S BUS KL-5/N-2845 (PREVIOUSLY KL-5/B-9990) ISSUED ON 29/1/2002, BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOTTAYAM. P2 : COPY OF THE TIMINGS OF THE PETITIONER'S BUS KL-5/B-9990 ISSUED ON 10/07/2006 BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOTTAYAM. P3 : COPY OF the PREVIOUS TIMINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S STAGE CARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, ERNAKULAM ON 09/10/2002. P4 : COPY OF THE REVISED TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL-5/V-4141 BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, ERNAKULAM BY ORDER DATED 06/05/2006. P5 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF MVARP NO.316/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/07/2006. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVARP NO.316/2006 DATED 30/11/2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.17173 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of September, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the STAT, Ernakulam rejecting M.V.A.R.P.No.316/2006 filed by the petitioner. 2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent, operating on the route Kaipuzhamuttu-Thoppumpady, got his 2nd and 4th trips extended to Ernakulam. As a consequence, he applied for revision of timings, and that was objected by, among others the petitioner also, who is an operator on the route Palai-Ernakulam. Grievance of the petitioner is that though only the 2nd and 4th trips were extended, the timings of the 1st trip of the 2nd respondent starting from Vaikom at 7.03 am was revised to 7.05 am. It is stated that the petitioner operates from Vaikom at 7.12 am, and as a result of the revision granted, the petitioner's timing is adversely affected. 3. Though, at the first blush, there appears to be substance in the contention of the petitioner, a reading of the revisional order WP(C) No.17173/2007 -2- shows that the trip earlier to that of the 2nd respondent leaves Vaikom at 7 am and as per the original schedule, the 2nd respondent was leaving Vaikom at 7.03 am. It was considering that the interval was too short that the Secretary revised the timings of the 1st trip also. In any case, the petitioner's trip was only at 7.12 am, which still has an interval of 7 minutes. Therefore, the revision of timings or the order confirming the same, cannot be said to be of any prejudice to him warranting interference. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg