IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15870 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS : -------------------- 1. K.R.SURENDRAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, KOCHATH HOUSE, POST ANTHIKKAD, PADIYAM, THRISSUR. 2. T.D.BAIJU, S/O.DAVIS, THAIKKATTIL HOUSE, POST PULLEZHI, THRISSUR. 3. V.S.PRADEEP, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, VIYYOORKKAVN HOUSE, VELLAYANIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. SMT.RUBY, W/O.JOY, KURUTHUKULANGARA MOOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR. 3. K.A.NAMEER, KEZHUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST CHERPU WEST, THRISSUR. 4. T.D.JOY, S/O.DEVASSY, THEKKANATH HOUSE, POST RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. 5. A.K.JOSE, ANTHIKKADAM HOUSE, POST ANCHERY, THRISSUR. WP(C).No. 15870 of 2008(L) 6. P.V.JOSE, PAVARATTYKARAN HOUSE, MANAKODY, THRISSUR. 7. UMMER, KAIKAPEEDIKA, CHAZHOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS - R6-7 SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN - R2,4 & 5 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17286 OF 2008 AND WPC NO. 17207 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NOs.15870,17207 & 17286/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT In these writ petitions filed by existing operators, the challenge is against the decision taken by the RTA, granting permits to the party respondents. The allegation is that, the said grants are in violation of the notification dated 6.5.2008, issued by the State Government, publishing the approved scheme. In my view, petitioners being the existing operators, lack locus standi to challenge the permits granted to the party respondents and this position is covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Binu Chacko V. RTA, Pathanamthitta(2006(2)KLT 172). In fact, in one of the cases dealt with by the Full Bench, the complaint was exactly similar to what is raised by the petitioners herein. WP(c).Nos.15870/08 & Ors. 2 2. Therefore, in the light of the Full Bench judgment noted above, these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. It is clarified that the official respondents will be free to proceed with the issuance of the grant in respect of the permits where timing schedules are fixed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).Nos.15870/08 & Ors. 3