IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 809 of 2006(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- P.SOUNDARARAJAN, PREETHY HOUSE, PUSHPAGIRI AGRAHARAM ROAD, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT, AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. KOLANTHAVELU, SREEVINAYAKA, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.809/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C5/26787/99M DT. 13.10.1999 OF THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., MALAPPURAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C9/38696/200 DT. 19.12.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/13093/03/C4 DT.1.1.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST DT.28.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/2965/05 DT.31.1.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.C2/3956/05 DT.2.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/5474/05 DT.10.2.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/2965/05/R DT.11.3.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT.10.6.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TIMING CONFERENCE VIDE NO.C2/2695/05 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 29.6.2005. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/2695/05/R DT.29.6.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN M.V.A.R.P.No.30/2005 BEFORE THE S.T.A.T. ON 21.10.2005 EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.308/2005 ON 8.11.2005. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P.NOS.263 & 308/2005 DT.24.11.2005 PASSED BY THE S.T.A.T. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.809 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is operating a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-8/W-3133 on the route Thrissur-Guruvayur- Kozhikode as limited stop ordinary service. The 3rd respondent is operating a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-8/V- 1999 on the route Thiruvilwamala-Thrissur-Kozhikode. The time schedule of the petitioner's vehicle is Ext.P1 issued on 13.10.1999. In the first trip, he departs from Kozhikode at 9.07 a.m. and arrives at Thrissur at 12.17 p.m. The time schedule of the 3rd respondent's vehicle as per Ext.P5 was clashing with the aforementioned time schedule of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent's vehicle starts from Kozhikode at 9.02 a.m. and reaches Thrissur at 12.17 p.m. Another operator challenged that order before this Court and the said order was quashed. Later, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal reversed the said decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, Ext.P5 was restored by Ext.P11. W.P.(C) No.809/2006 2 2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P11 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal pointing out the aforementioned time clash. But the S.T.A.T. dismissed the revision filed by him by Ext.P15 order. The Tribunal found that against Ext.P5, the petitioner did not take any steps. So, as against him that was become final. By Ext.P11, the Secretary of the R.T.A. restored it, taking note of the aforementioned Division Bench decision. So, in the absence of any challenge to Ext.P5, challenge to Ext.P11 was repelled. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P11 and P15. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 was issued pursuant to a timing conference held on 27.1.2005. Against the timing proposed in that timing conference, he filed a representation on 29.1.2005. By Ext.P6, the Secretary, R.T.A., on 2.2.2005 issued a notice to him for hearing on that objection dated 29.1.2005. So, the petitioner thought that the Secretary is going to revise Ext.P5. That is the reason, why he did not challenge it. W.P.(C) No.809/2006 3 4. Whatever be his reason, Ext.P5 has not been revised by the Secretary considering his objection. So, Ext.P5 remains as such unchallenged. As mentioned earlier, that was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court but restored by the Division Bench of this Court. Since Ext.P8 order was issued in the mean time based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling Ext.P5, the Secretary issued Ext.P11 restoring Ext.P5 in the light of the Division Bench judgment. So, it is clear that the petitioner has chosen not to challenge Ext.P5. Therefore, his challenge to Ext.P11 is unsustainable. So, I find nothing illegal with the stand of the S.T.A.T. in Ext.P15. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps