IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20889 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SETHUMADHAVAN, VRINDAVAN, KUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. SURESH.J.S., SURESH BHAVAN, BHOOTHANKKULAM, PUTHENKULAM.P.O, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM - 691 519. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.20889 OF2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Manaluvattam-Kollam operating with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 16/909. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the settlement of timings in respect of the stage carriage belonging to the second respondent. In case the petitioner has got any such grievance, he has to prefer revision in terms of Section 90 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. Since there is a statutory remedy provided in the Act itself I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition raising grievance against the timings settled in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent based on the permit granted in his favour. It will be open to the petitioner to resort to the statutory remedy available for redressing the grievance, if any, in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the timings were settled in respect of the vehicle of the second respondent on 14.6.2010. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on 5.7.2010 and notice on admission was ordered on 6.7.2010. Based on the said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the State W.P.(C) NO.20889/2010 2 Transport Appellate Tribunal to entertain the revision petition after condoning the delay. I do not think that the petitioner is justified in making such a submission. In case there is delay in filing a revision petition, it is up to the petitioner to file a proper petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal explaining the delay. If such a petition for condonation of delay in the matter of filing revision is filed, definitely, it will be decided, in accordance with law, by the Tribunal. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.20889/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.20889/2010 4