IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2094 of 2009 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25808/2008 Dated 17/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------- M.S.SIDDIQUE, AGED 46, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MULACKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON & SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. K.A.JOSEPH MASTER, MEMBER, VALLATHOLE NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.CHERUTHURUTHY. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. R4 BY ADV. SRI. I. DINESH MENON. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2094 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P14 order, as per which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowed the application filed by the fourth respondent herein, to get himself impleaded in M.V.A.A. No.352 of 2008. The said appeal was filed by the appellant herein against Ext.P6 order of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad dated 20.11.2007 rejecting the application to vary the permit of the appellant by extending the route concerned from Nedumpura to Pallikkal School Junction. The original route was Shornur-Pattambi-Nedumpura. Now the route is sought to be changed as Shornur-Nedumpura-Pallikkal School Junction. The fourth respondent herein was a person interested in sustaining Ext.P6 order, as it was beneficial to the travelling public and therefore, the application for impleading was allowed by Ext.P14. Challenging that order, the writ petition was filed. The learned W.A.No.2094/09 - 2 - Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on two grounds. Firstly, it was held that, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner/appellant by impleading the fourth respondent. Secondly, it was held that the said respondent has locus standi, in view of Section 89(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly attacks the second ground. Since, we are satisfied that the first ground taken for dismissing the Writ Petition is legal and valid, it is unnecessary to consider the other point. On the first point itself, the appeal will fail. That is, by the impugned order, Ext.P14, no prejudice is caused to the appellant. His grievance against that order is remote and fanciful and therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Q. Barkath Ali, Judge. DK. (True copy)