IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30230 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BAIJU.P.K., PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEEPPUNGAL P.O., KUMARAKAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. M.N.SASIDHARAN, MATTATHIL, AMBIKA MARKET, VAIKOM. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30230/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 permit was issued in favour of the second respondent to operate a stage carriage on the route Vaikom - Cherthala on 11.8.2008. Apparently, the second respondent perceived that there is an error in the issuance of time schedule pursuant to Ext.P3 in as much as that, according to him, the route covers a distance of 22 Kms. But the timing was settled only in relation to a route length of 21 Kms. He therefore, filed an application for correction of the error and then approached this Court in Writ Petition No.28659/2008 for a direction to the Secretary, RTA, to take a decision on the said application. Said writ petition was disposed of on 30.9.2008 by the following judgment. “Petitioner operates a stage carriage on a regular permit on the route Vaikom-Cherthala, which W.P.(C).30230/2008 2 according to the petitioner, covers a distance of 22 Kms. Apparently, in settling the timings, the total route length was noted as 21 Kms instead of 22 Kms. This, according to the petitioner, is a typographical error that can be corrected by the respondent himself. Ext.P2 application is filed for the purpose of rectifying the error. In the facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to look into Ext.P2 application and consider whether there has been error in settling the timings. If found so, error may be rectified in accordance with law. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. Petitioner is aggrieved that the Secretary, RTA, is proposing a revision of the timings settled in relation to the route of the second respondent, on 11.8.2008 and has proposed to convene a timing conference in that behalf, as evidenced by Ext.P4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary, RTA, has no W.P.(C).30230/2008 3 jurisdiction to revise the timing schedule which is settled as per Ext.P3 on 11.8.2008. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submits that what he has sought for is only a correction of error in the route length and not a revision of timings already settled. 4. I have already issued a direction to the Secretary, RTA, in Writ Petition No.28659/2008 to look into the application for correction of an error submitted by the petitioner therein, the second respondent herein, as regards Ext.P3 permit. It is made clear that the proceedings contemplated by Ext.P4 shall only be the proceedings intended to deal with an application filed by the second respondent herein for correction of the route length as already directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.28659/2008 and shall not be treated as for revision of the timings already settled under Ext.P3. In the circumstances, petitioner shall also be heard, in the W.P.(C).30230/2008 4 course of taking a decision on the application filed by the second respondent, as already directed in the aforementioned writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs