IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WA.No. 611 of 2010 ---------------------- (Against the judgment in WP(C).No.32847/09 dt.17/11/2009) APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------- K.N.NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 60, S/O. LATE K.C.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KARIPPAL MANA, NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR. 3. SRI.SHINJITH P.S., (WRONGLY TYPED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS S/O. SADASIVAN, PAMPUMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. 4. C.A.DAVIS, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O.CHETTUPUZHA, TRICHUR. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 611 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge who repelled the challenge made by the appellant against Ext.P10 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam holding that there was no scope for interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, inasmuch as it had been passed after keeping in view all the relevant aspects of the issue. 2. Appellant who was not at all satisfied with the time slot allotted to his rival stage carriage operator viz., respondent No.3 on Kulappully-Medical College-Guruvayoor route raised objection before respondent No.2 and contended that the time slot allotted to the said operator would adversely affect his service for a distance of about 22 kms. on the wadakkencherry-Shoranur sector. 3. The said objection was considered by respondent No.2 as directed by this Court in a Timing Conference which was admittedly attended by about 60 stage carriage operators operating in the various sectors in that area. Respondent No.2 overruled the objection raised by the appellant as is evident from Ext.P4 order. WA.611/2010I : 2 : The said order was challenged by the appellant before the appellate Tribunal in a revision petition. 4. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the appellant was admittedly represented by his duly authorised agent in the “timing conference” and that even on the face of the objection raised by him it could not be said that there was room for any grievance as alleged by the appellant. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the revision petition holding that the objection raised by the appellant was wholly untenable. It was also taken note of by the Tribunal that the conference was held by respondent No.2 after complying with the statutory mandates under the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant Rules. 5. The learned Judge after adverting to the above aspects, particularly the fact that appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to be heard before respondent No.2, took the view that there was no merit in the writ petition. We find absolutely no reason to take a different view. Having carefully considered the entire materials available on record, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ appeal. Therefore the writ appeal is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge.