IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34198 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- UNNIKRISHNAN P.V., POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, THENUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, PALAKKAD. 3. C.SUNIL KRISHNAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, CHEMMUKA KALAM, P.O.MANKARAN, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON FOR R3 SRI.M.JITHESH MENON FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NOS 3174, 4388, 6040, 6256, 6728 & 9057/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34198/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 9.5.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, PALAKKAD HELD ON 17.9.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.477/07 DT 23.3.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHARMAN, RTA, PALAKKAD DT 24.9.2007. EXTS OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINING THE TIMINGS DT. 20.09.2007. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINING THE TIMINGS DT 31.10.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 34198/07, 3174, 4388, 6040, 6256, 6728, 9057/2008 =============================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T In WP(C) No.6040/2008, the challenge is against the order passed by the STAT rejecting an impleading petition filed by the petitioner, a rival operator. Similar order is under challenge in WP(C) No.3174/2008 also. 2. In WP(C) Nos.6256, 6728, 9057 & 4388/08, petitioners are stage carriage operators and STAT orders granting permit are under challenge. 3. In so far as WP(C) No.34198/07 is concerned, direction sought for by the rival operator is against the RTA to pass orders on a representation filed by him against the grant of permit. 4. The common issue that arises for consideration is whether rival operators have the locus standi to contest against the grant of permit. In view of the Full Bench Decision in the case of Binu Chacko v. R.T.A. Pathanamthitta (2006(2) KLT 172), the position is settled that the rival operators have no locus standi. In view of the Full Bench judgment, writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp