IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 333 of 2011. Decided on: 21st February, 2011. Raj Kumar Jaswal. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) As far as fixation of the time schedule of the State Carriage Operator by the petitioner, there is already an interim order dated 14th January, 2011 in CMP No. 461 of 2011, which reads as follows: “Notice in the above terms. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the Division Bench in CWP No. 65 of 2011 on 6.1.2011 in similar matter has passed the following order:- “The writ petition is filed on the following prayer:- It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and a writ of mandamus as well as any other appropriate writ, orders or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to perform their statutory duties and to hold a time table meeting between the various stage carriage operators, who are plying on the route mentioned hereinabove as stipulated by law and 2 to be fair, just and equitable in allotting the time table to the parties concerned including the petitioner. 2. It is for the second and third respondents to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law and justice. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second and third respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice in the matter within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition, by the petitioner before the said respondents. 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order, as extracted above, making it further clear that in case the meeting has not been held so far, the same shall be held and the time fixed within a period of one month on the production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the second respondent. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st February, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr) Judge. 3