IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 976 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11499/2010 Dated 05/04/2010 .................... APPELLANT/NOT A PARTY IN THE W.P.(C):- ------------------------------------------------------------- M.P.PRASAD,MANALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ENATHI.P.O,VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C):- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. E.P.VINOJ, EDATTU HOUSE, VADAYAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.976 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1, we have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.1 could not have been granted the relief which he sought for in the writ petition which resulted in the impugned judgment. 2. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to consider Ext.P1 representation submitted by respondent No.1 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 3. It has come out from the records available before us that respondent No.1 had approached this Court on an earlier occasion praying for a direction to settle timings and W.A. No.976 of 2010 -: 2 :- to issue permit pursuant thereto. The above writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated February 18, 2010 as is revealed from Annexure-A2, with a direction to the Secretary to settle the timings in the meeting scheduled to be held on 22.2.2010. 4. Pursuant to the above said judgment, Annexure A-3 order was passed by the Secretary on February 22, 2010. On the fifth day of passing of the above order, respondent No.1 submitted Ext.P1 application seeking a further revision of timings without revealing the fact that the timings for his vehicle had been settled only five days ago. The learned Single Judge had without noticing the above aspects, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Secretary to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1. 5. We do not want to make any observation on the manner in which respondent No.1 has conducted himself. If he was not satisfied with Annexure-A3 order, he ought to have challenged it before the appropriate statutory W.A. No.976 of 2010 -: 3 :- authority. Suffice it to say that respondent No.1 had manged to obtain an order in the Writ Petition which he did not deserve. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, however making it clear that it would be open to respondent No.1 to challenge Annexure-A3 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, if so advised. The Tribunal shall entertain the revision petition, if any, that may be filed by respondent No.1, ignoring the delay, if it is filed on or before July 26, 2010. The Tribunal shall ensure that respondent No.1 impleads the parties in Annexure-A3 in the revision petition. Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. Jvt