IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20801 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.M. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, EKAROOL, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, MR.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA 3. M.K. NAFEESA, W/O. K.K. KOYA, MUNDOTTOM KANDY HOUSE, P.O. KINALUR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1,R2 & R4 BY GP, MR. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20801 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an existing operator of a stage carriage on a regular permit on the route Kakkayam-Balussery-Kozhikode with the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/5726. He applied for a variation of the permit by extension from Thalayad to Kakkayam and to curtail a portion from Balussery to Muthottikal. Variation was granted under Ext.P1 and timings were settled as per Ext.P2. It seems that the 3rd respondent herein, another operator on the route Muthottikal-Koyilandy- Thamarassery filed a complaint before the Secretary, RTA, aggrieved by Ext.P2 and this was directed to be looked into as per Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner apprehended a revision of Ext.P2 and therefore filed a representation before the 2nd respondent, which was also directed to be considered as per Ext.P4 judgment. W.P.(C).No.20801 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. Thereafter, by Ext.P5, the timings settled under Ext.P2 was revised by the 2nd respondent and this has been affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Ext.P7. Exts.P5 and P7 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. There is no appearance for the contesting respondent, in spite of issuance of notice. 4. The Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that in Ext.P3 judgment, this court directed the issue to be reconsidered at the instance of the 3rd respondent. This is not the course to be adopted. This court only directed a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent to be looked into. It only meant that if the grievance is otherwise cognizable, necessary action should be adopted. This court had given a direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider revision of the timings in an appropriately held timing conference. In the circumstances, it cannot detract from the W.P.(C).No.20801 of 2009 :: 3 :: finality otherwise attributable to settlement of timings and availability of a statutory revision against the proceedings of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority by an aggrieved person. 5. In the result, Ext.P7 is set aside and M.V.R.P.No.433/08 shall stand restored to the files of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The parties shall enter appearance before the tribunal on 5.10.2009 and the said revision shall be disposed of afresh, in the light of the observations contained in this judgment within two months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge