IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22854 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- MVARP.210/2009 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. R.RAVI, K.P.SADANAM, NELLIMUGAL P.O. ADOOR. 2. K.S.ABDUL SALAM, KAROOR HOUSE, AMBALATHUMBHAGAM, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. LEKHA BHASKAR, MOHANA BHAVANAM, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.22854 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P1 order of the first respondent and Ext.P4 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in MVARP No.210 of 2009. As per Ext.P4, the STAT has confirmed Ext.P1 and has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. 2. The first petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting service on the route Pandalam - Bharanikavu with Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL-7 AN 5395. The second respondent is conducting service on the route Sasthamacotta - Pathanapuram with Stage Carriage bearing registration No. KL 23 1950. The second respondent was granted a permit on the route Cherickal - Bharanikavu The petitioners are aggrieved by the timings granted to the second respondent. According to the petitioners, the timings have been granted just eleven minutes ahead of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is having a clash with the second respondent for a distance of 14 kms from Vazhakulam to Thengamam. According to the petitioners, there Wpc 22854/2010 2 was a time gap of 48 to 50 minutes earlier. At present, the time gap has been reduced to eleven minutes for the first petitioner and eighteen minutes for the second petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners filed objections before the first respondent and challenged the timings. The STAT considered the matter again and by Ext.P4 order, dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 in this writ petition. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the area being an ill served area and a rural area, the reduced time gap now given is insufficient to conduct the service in a smooth manner. According to the counsel, a gap of 40 minutes is necessary in such rural areas. It is contended that the authorities have not considered the case of the second petitioner at all. Since the authorities have not considered the objections of the petitioners in the proper perspective, it is contended that Exts.P1 and P4 are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, Sri. K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 4. It has been noticed by the STAT that the first petitioner is getting a time gap of 21 minutes and that the second petitioner is Wpc 22854/2010 3 getting a time gap of 18 minutes. I notice that both the petitioners are operating on different routes with overlapping only over certain portions of their routes. It has been taken note of by the STAT that the distance over which there is overlapping between the routes of the first petitioner and the second respondent is only 12 kms. The overlapping of the routes of the second petitioner and the second respondent occurs only for a distance of 14 kms. As rightly observed by the STAT, a time gap of 21 mintues for the first petitioner and 18 minutes for the second petitioner cannot be considered to be inadequate over the said distance. Though it is contended by the petitioners that they were enjoying a time gap of more than 40 minutes, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioners cannot claim any such facility as a matter of right. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the STAT evidenced herein by Ext.P4. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk