The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P8 Order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed on 11.09.2013, wherein the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, who was operating the regular permit was the applicant. The petitioner challenges the timings settled on the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also has produced documents to show that the 3rd respondent had been frequently requesting for revision of timings which was granted by the authority itself or on orders of the higher authorities.
2. Definitely, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, if operating the vehicle, would have had the opportunity to challenge the same. Obviously, only Ext.P6 which was settled after the variation was effected, was challenged. The Order of the Tribunal was passed on 11.09.2013. The W.P.(C) No.20462/2014 -2-
predecessor-in-interest was satisfied with the same and did not take it up in appeal. Subsequent to the Order in M.V.A.R.P. No. 284/2010, the petitioner had obtained transfer of the permit. The petitioner seeks to challenge the Order after more than a year. This Court is of the opinion that it cannot be permitted.
This Writ Petition, is hence dismissed.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj