IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15901 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.S.SIDDIQUE, AGED 44, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MULACKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR, PIN - 679 531. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRISSUR. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1, 2 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.V.MANOJKUMAR R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI JOHNSON P. JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 15901 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 29, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 as confirmed by Ext.P10. 2. By Ext.P4 regular permit application made by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route Thiruvananthapuram - Kannur and violates the modified supplementation scheme dated 9.5.2007. This finding of the RTA has been confirmed by the STAT while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P10 judgment. 3. A reading of Ext.P10 shows that apart from the issue of overlapping, no other points have been raised before the Tribunal and the point that has been urged was properly considered by the Tribunal and its finding is not vitiated by any perversity warranting interference. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the WP(C) 15901/08 2 pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had filed Ext.P9 affidavit urging the contention that the Thiruvananthapuram - Kannur Scheme was not intended to operate through Cheruthuruthy and Shornur. However, as this issue is not seen urged before the Tribunal when the matter was heard, I do not think it will be proper for this court to entertain such a plea raised in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-