(1.) Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) In a revision filed by a stage carriage operator (Appellant herein), it had been contended that the timings prescribed by the Authority was irrational and it required to be revised. But this was rejected by Ext.P5 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. W.P.(C).No.12372 of 2006, filed against the said order, was dismissed by judgment dated 21-08-2006, and the operator has filed this appeal. The learned single Judge had found that the petitioner cannot be considered as aggrieved by the timings in vogue and had concurred with the views of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) We had heard Mr.G.Prabhakaran, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Although the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned, we do not think on that score interference is warranted. Certain factual details had been given by the third respondent, which necessarily have to tilt the issue as against the appellant. The dispute is in respect of the timing granted pertaining to one trip. The allegation is that the third respondent's stage carriage arrive at Thoppumpady at 7.10 p.m and wait there up to 7.17. But, it has to be noticed that the appellant's vehicle leaves Thoppumpady at 7.15 p.m, i.e. two minutes earlier. Thus the appellant cannot complain that there is opportunity for the third respondent to steal a march over him. It has also been highlighted that there is another vehicle operating on the same route, which starts from Thoppumpady at 7.19 p.m. Gaps could be granted only as the system permits. We are aware of the difficult work of adjustments that are to be carried on by the authorities and are satisfied that in the best possible manner accommodation to the rival operators is given. Even the permit granted to the appellant indicated that the appellant was having the same timings when he was earlier granted the temporary permit. This timings had been continued as applicable to him when the pucca permit was granted.