IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19053 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.K.RAVEENDRAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KARAPPAN,MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE,CHAZHOOR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT(R.C.OWNER KL-8AP/9450). BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-3. 2. K.V.SATHYAN,KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST, KODUNGALLUR VIA,THRISSUR DIST- 680664. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19053/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF IST RESPONDENT DTD. 20.9.02 WITH SET OF TIMINGS. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 4.6.2010 IN ORDER NO.C5/7271/2009/R OF IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE FRESH TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO SC VEHICLE KL8/Q/5284 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 4.6.10. P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 4.6.10 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 9.6.1`0 TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15.6.10 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN ORDERS NO.C5/4821/2010/R DTD. 15.6.10. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19053 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the timings issued to the second respondent. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on a similar route. According to the petitioner, the present timings granted to the second respondent causes needless hardship and trouble to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted his objections, Ext.P4. Later on he submitted Ext.P6 representation. They were considered and rejected as per Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the second respondent has challenged the timings issued to him before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and that the entire issue is pending consideration of the said authority in MVARP No.126 of 2010. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition was filed for the reason that wpc No.19053/2010 2 the Tribunal had not been notified at that time. 3. Since the entire dispute regarding the timings of the second respondent is pending consideration of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT for short) in MVARP No.126 of 2010, it is better that the issues are decided by the said authority. The petitioner wants to get himself impleaded as a party to the said revision and to submit his objections before the STAT. The STAT shall consider the objections of the petitioner also while finally disposing of MVARP No.126 of 2010. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/