The petitioner is aggrieved with the purported settlement of timings, by Ext.P2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the proceedings being issued at Ext.P2, no appeal could have been filed, since there was no revision or settlement as such in issuing Ext.P2. The petitioners submits that in fact, the 2nd respondent had approached the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) with an application in which he had contended that his original timings settled by the Secretary, has been misplaced for issuance of a certified copy. Hence, the objections were called for and no objections were filed as seen from the original order of settlement evidenced at Ext.P2. Admittedly, the complaint given at Ext.P3 was long after the proceedings of the Secretary, RTA at Ext.P2. W.P.(C) No.14905 of 2011 - K 2 2. In any event, if the petitioner was aggrieved with such timings, the petitioner ought to have approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). Even now, since the present writ petition is pending from 01.06.2011, the petitioner could definitely seek for delay condonation and approach the STAT.
The writ petition is disposed of.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB