A.Samikutty v. The Regional,Regional Transport Authority,Kozhikode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/10TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2939 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------- A.SAMIKUTTY, VARAYIL HOUSE, MANAKAVU P.O AZHCHAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE - 673 020

2. NASSER M., S/O K. USMAN, MUTHACHIKANDY HOUSE ATHOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 315 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 2939 of 2015 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH ITS NO.P.ST.11/46/1993 DATED 13.10.09.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE EXISTING TIMING OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE DATED 4.12.03.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL-11/AA-2269 DATED 19.11.10. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTED 24.2.11.

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KERALA KOUMUDI DAILY NEWS DATED 15.5.11.

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE TIMING OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.9.13.

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE TIMING OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.7.14.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.2939 of 2015 - N ====================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner seeks consideration of objections with respect to the settlement of timings, which was arrived as early as in 2010. The petitioner contends that, different running time was alloted to the 2nd respondent and hence, the same causes prejudice to the petitioner, who is a rival operator. The petitioner is also a person, who has been operating on a regular permit, at Ext.P1, from 03.03.2006. In such circumstance, if the petitioner had any objection, he ought to have filed an appeal/revision from the order, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

The writ petition at this distance of time is not maintainable and cannot be entertained; and is hence dismissed.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.