Sulaiman vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 395 of 2009()


1. SULAIMAN, AGED 58,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT

3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :19/02/2009

 O R D E R
  K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                     -------------------------------
                      W.A.No.395 OF 2009
                    --------------------------------
          Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route

Thiruwilwamala – Alathur. The permit was issued as per Ext.P1

proceedings with the time schedule annexed to it. A reading of

the said proceedings would show that the timings were settled ,

unanimously, in the presence of 45 enroute operators. Even

then, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 revision before the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging Ext.P1. The Tribunal

dismissed it by Ext.P3 order. Challenging Exts.P1 and P3, the

writ petition was filed.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

holding that Ext.P1 timings were settled as per the unanimous

decision in a timing conference. We find no reason to take a

different view in this matter. The learned counsel for the

appellant pointed out that, in fact, it was not an unanimous

W.A.No.395/2009 2

decision and he was having grievance against the time schedule.

But, we notice that, in Ext.P2 revision petition, he does not

dispute the statement in Ext.P1 that the time schedule annexed

to it is the result of a unanimous decision. If the said statement

in Ext.P1 was wrong, the petitioner should have specifically

pleaded so in Ext.P2. In the absence of any pleadings to that

effect in Ext.P2 revision, we have to take that the statement

mentioned above contained in Ext.P1 is correct. Therefore, we

find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned

Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. But, the

dismissal of the appeal will not affect the rights, if any, of the

petitioner to move for modification of the time schedule, based

on the changed circumstances on the route.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)

ps