IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No.1762 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20398/2008 DATED 08/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SATHYAN K.V. , KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRASPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1762 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 16th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20398 of 2008. The learned Single Judge by his orders dated 8th July, 2008 has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. (2) The facts in brief are: The petitioner is the owner of two stage carriage services. The Regional Transport Authority initially assigned the timings to these two stage carriage services. On a later date, the owner of these two stage carriage services had approached the Regional Transport Authority for change of timings between these two stage carriage services. The request made by the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner had carried the matter in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the issue after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (3) After such remand, the Regional Transport Authority has W.A.No.1762 of 2008 2 passed yet another order reiterating its earlier view that if the request of the petitioner is granted it would cause inconvenience to the other stage carriage operators. Being aggrieved by the findings and conclusions reached by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner had filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in No.M.V.A.R.P.No.102 of 2008. The Tribunal by its order dated 13th June, 2008 has rejected the revision petition and while doing so at paragraph 4 of the order it has observed as under: “It would appear that the petitioner is operating two services on identical routes. The petitioner wants revision of timings in such a way as to operate both his services with enough time gaps. But considering the factual situation and taking into account, the set of timings allotted to the other services, the 2nd respondent was not inclined to vary the timings that are already allotted to the services of the petitioner. Going by the impugned order, I am not persuaded to hold that the said order suffer from any illegality or impropriety thereby to interfere in revision invoking the powers of this Tribunal u/s.90 of the M.V.Act. It is to be remembered that the change of timings is sought for by the petitioner to unsettle timings in respect of the other services as well. At any rate, the petitioner could not show that the impugned order is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety. It follows that this revision petition is without any merit.” W.A.No.1762 of 2008 3 (4) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings by both the authorities under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' for short), the petitioner was before this Court in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the facts decided by the authorities under the Act has thought it fit not to interfere with those orders by exercising his extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, he has rejected the writ petition. (5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. (6) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterates the stand taken before the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit whatsoever. (7) First and foremost, there is a concurrent finding by both the authorities under the Act. It is not the case of the appellant before us that the concurrent finding on facts by the authorities under the Act is either a perverse finding or a capricious finding. (8) In the instant case, taking into consideration the hardship that may be caused to the other stage carriage operators, the authorities under the Act have rejected the claim of the appellant for allotment of different timings. There is a concurrent finding by both the authorities under the Act to the effect that, if for any reason, the request of the W.A.No.1762 of 2008 4 appellant is granted it will cause inconvenience to the other stage carriage operators. This concurrent finding, in our opinion, cannot be disturbed by us in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. (9) Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns