IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37242 of 2007(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- BOBY JOSEPH, PURAPPANTHANAM HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. P.K.SABU, PULIYANAPUZHA, KIZHUTHIRI, RAMAPURAM, PALA. 4. V.J.RADHAMONI, ROHINI HOUSE, VAZHITHALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 37242/2007 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 28/10/05. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 432/2005 DT. 22/5/07. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE TIMING NOTICE DT. 13/09/07. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 16/10/2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 30/10/2007. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN MVARP NO. 503 & 508/2007 DT. 28/11/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 37242 OF 2007 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4 as confirmed in Ext. P6. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by Ext. P3 the timing conference was scheduled to be held at 10.30 a.m. on 3.10.2007 and it was adjourned to 11.10.2007 and Ext. P4 is the proceedings. Petitioner would submit that in between 3.10.2007 and 11.10.2007 no individual notice was given. Though he carried the matter in revision to the Tribunal, the Tribunal also rejected the revision by Ext. P6 order on the reasoning that the timing conference held on 11.10.2007 was after several adjournments. According to the Tribunal, since it was only an adjourned meeting no individual notice was necessary. 3. This reasoning of the Tribunal does not seem to be correct in view of the judgment of this Court in Thomas Lucka v. W.P.(C) No. 37242 OF 2007 - 2 - Secretary {1991 (2) KLT 229} wherein it has been held that individual notice will have to go to the owner of the stage carriage the timings of whose service are sought to be varied and the owner of the stage carriage at whose instance variation is sought to be made. Admittedly, this requirement has not been complied with in this case. Therefore, Exts. P4 and P6 will stand quashed and the 2nd respondent RTA shall reconsider the matter. 4. However, I clarify that since Ext.P4 was issued as early as on 16.10.2007, the status quo as on today will be maintained until the matter is reconsidered by the 2nd respondent as directed above. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-