IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26643 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.ABDUL KHADER, ISMAIL MANZIL, PITTU PEEDIKA, KODUVAYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. R.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.A.RAMANKUTTY, MATTUKADA HOUSE, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. G.P. SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.26643 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.R.P. No.81/2009. In that revision, the petitioner challenged timings granted to the 3rd respondent in respect of his stage carriage on the ground that there is no sufficient time gap between the 3rd respondent's service and the service of the petitioner. After considering the contentions of both sides, the Tribunal held as follows: “3) The 1st time slot of the 3rd respondent, in respect of which the petitioner is affected is 2.42 pm from Palakkad. But it is clearly averred in the revision petition that the petitioner is getting 13 minutes time gap in respect of that trip of the 3rd respondent, in as much as the petitioner is leaving that station at 2.55 p.m. The second time slot of the 3rd respondent, which the petitioner is affect, is the departure time given to the 3rd respondent from Nenmara at 5.04 p.m. But in respect of that service the petitioner is getting a clear time gap of 8 minutes, in so far as his departure time from Nemmara is 5.12 p.m. The third time slot of the 3rd respondent reportedly affecting the petitioner's service is the departure time from Palakkad at 6.34 p.m. But in respect of that service also, the petitioner is getting a clear time gap of 11 minutes, as his departure time from Palakkad is 6.45 p.m. The 4th time slot in respect of which the petitioner is stated to be affected is the departure time given to the 3rd respondent from Nenmara at 8 p.m. But in respect of this service also the petitioner is getting a time gap of 15 minutes, as his service is leaving that station at 8.15 p.m. Thus, on a mere perusal of the disputed timings given to the 3rd respondent it is very clear that the petitioner is not an affected party, who is entitled to challenge the impugned order u/s 90 of the M.V. Act. In fact, as contended by the 3rd respondent, at every stage of the grant of a fresh permit to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was resisting. So much so, the present revision petition can also be considered as an attempt to prevent the 3rd respondent from enjoying the grant of the permit in his favour. Anyway, the impugned order would clearly go to show that the disputed timings of the 3rd respondent were settled in a well attended timing conference convened on 7.2.2007, even though the order was issued only on 2 25.2.2009 after the dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court. On a careful consideration of the factual situation obtaining in the case I am convinced that this revision petition is frivolous and vexatious. At any rate, the petitioner thoroughly failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or impropriety, thereby to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal u/s. 90 of the M.V.Act. It follows that this revision petition is without any merit. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.” From the same, I find that the Tribunal has found that there is sufficient time gap between the service of the petitioner and the service of the 3rd respondent. The same is a finding of fact. I do not think that this Court can, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with such findings of fact. Accordingly, challenge against Ext.P5 fails and the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge