The petitioner is aggrieved with the timings settled on the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that, originally the 2nd respondent was running between Beypore - Puthiyappa in 50 minutes and the same has now been changed to 55 minutes. The petitioner challenges such revision, since, that would result in clash of the petitioner's timings. In fact, the 2nd respondent has appeared and filed a counter affidavit, which indicates that, Ext.R2(a) is the settlement made in accordance with D3 circular. Ext.R2(a) shows that the settlement has been made in accordance with a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2785 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013, in which the petitioner contends that they were not impleaded. 2. In any event, the petitioner had a remedy by way of W.P.(C) No.16169 of 2013 - U 2 revision against Ext.R2(a), which admittedly the petitioner did not avail of. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though admitted, no interim order was issued. Hence the 2nd respondent has been operating in the timing settled on her stage carriage. If the petitioner has a grievance with respect to his timings, he could approach the appropriate authority for revision, if the same is permissible.
The writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.