IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19651 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHIHABUDHEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, CHERUSSOLA HOUSE, EDIVANNA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. ADDL. R3 - SRI. ABDUL BASHEER, CHUMADAN HOUSE, UPPADA, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM - ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31.7.2009 IN I.A. NO. 9466/09 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 19651 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding a permit for conducting service on the route Kaippini-Chungathara. Timings of his service were settled as early as on 2.2.2000. The 3rd respondent is another operator having a permit on the route Manali-Chungathara-Kaippini-Kottappadam. His timings were settled on 28.9.2002. The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 request dated 21.4.2009 for convening a timing conference on the ground that the timings given to the 3rd respondent clash with the timings of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to convene a timing conference for settling fresh timings for his service. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner. Admittedly the timings of the petitioner were settled on 2.2.2000 and that of the 3rd respondent was settled on 28.9.2002. The petitioner has no case that the timings of the 3rd respondent W.P(C) No. 19651 of 2009 -2- were settled without notice to the petitioner. When the timings of the 3rd respondent were settled, the petitioner had no objection against the same. He did not challenge the timings also. After seven years he cannot now come and say that the timings of the 3rd respondent clash with his timings. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs