IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25169 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.M. KUNJUMON, PAKKOLIL HOUSE, KONNATHADY CENTRAL PO. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI- 685 602. 2. D. SUBASH, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA PIN-686 661. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.I. DINESH MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.25169 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting services on the route Adimaly - Nedumkandam with Stage Carriage bearing registration No.KL-6/D 8338. The petitioner's timings have been settled as per Ext.P1. The second respondent is the holder of another regular permit conducting services on the route Thodupuzha - Panickankudy via Adimaly. He had filed application for the issue of a temporary permit in respect of the very same vehicle to conduct services over an extended route from Panickankudy - Nedumkandam. A temporary permit has been granted to him. However, for the purpose of settlement of his timings, a timing conference has been convened and is scheduled to be conducted on 13.8.2010. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is not possible for the 2nd respondent to operate his services on the extended route, without upsetting his present timings, Ext.P2. It is contended that a temporary permit can be granted only if the service over the extended Wpc 25169/2010 2 route can be conducted without upsetting the settled timings. Therefore, the counsel contends that he has submitted Ext.P4 objections to the proposed timings and requests that his objections may also be considered before settling the timings of the second respondent. 3. Adv.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader places reliance on the decision in Binu Chacko V. RTA, Pathamanthitta (2006(2)KLT 172(F.B), to contend that the petitioner being an existing operator, is not entitled to object to the grant of a permit either permanent or temporary to another operator, his rights being limited to objecting to the timings that may be granted to such a person. In Ext.P4, since the grant of temporary permit itself is assailed, it is submitted that the objections are not maintainable. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Adv.I.Dinesh Menon, who appears for the second respondent reiterates the contentions of the Senior Government Pleader and also contends that the timing conference is being held in compliance with the judgment of this court in WP(C)21913 of 2010 dated 14.7.2010 and therefore, there are no grounds to postpone the same. It is contended that the intention of the petitioner is only to see that the timings of the Wpc 25169/2010 3 second respondent are not settled, some how or the other. 5. It is clear from Ext.P3 that the timing conference is being held in compliance with the judgment of this court in WP(C) 21913 of 2010. Admittedly, the said writ petition was filed by the second respondent who has obtained a direction for the settlement of his timings on an early date. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the timing conference that is scheduled to be held on 13.8.2010. The petitioner being an existing operator, is free to put forward his objections at the timing conference on 13.8.2010, if the timings proposed to be issued to the second respondent are in any way objectionable. Apart from the above right of objecting to the timings that are proposed, the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the temporary permit already granted to the second respondent. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his objections if any with regard to the timings that are proposed to be issued to the second respondent at the timing conference on 13.8.2010. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk