Judgment · High Court · 2006

V.K.Bali,C.J. & S.Siri Jagan,J.------------------------------------W.A.No.166 of 2004------------------------------------Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2006JUDGMENTV.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) Against fixation of time schedule of the appellantby the 2nd respondent, the petitioner, who is now arrayed inthe Writ Appeal as 1st respondent, filedobjection/representation. A learned Single Judge of this Courtvide impugned order dated 17th October, 2003 directedconsideration of the objection/representation, which isimpermissible in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishnankutty v. John [1992 (2) KLT 883],according to which such order of time schedule can bechallenged only in revision under Section 90 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport AppellateTribunal. It could not be disputed during the course ofargument that the matter is covered in favour of the appellantand against the 1st respondent. That being so, this appeal isallowed and the order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by thelearned Single Judge is set aside. W.A.No.166 of 200422. At this stage, learned counsel representing the1st respondent brings to our notice that pursuant to thedirection given by the learned Single Judge, the concernedauthority in re-considering the matter has already changedthe timings and even though some timings with regard to 1strespondent might have been changed, the appellant's timeschedule remains the same. In view of the factual position asdisclosed, we may only observe that the 1st respondent mayeven now file a revision and in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of this case, we order that if the revision isfiled within a period of thirty days from today, no objectionwith regard to limitation can be raised, as also accepted bythe counsel for the appellant. Sd/- V.K.Bali Chief Justice Sd/- S.Siri Jagan Judgevku/-(True Copy) P.A.to Judge.