IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31059 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT.DILIDEV, W/O.RAJEEV, ANITHA BHAVAN, ALTHARAMOODU, (VIA) ALOMCODE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. MR.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) AT ATTINGAL, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) AT ATTINGAL. 3. SRI.M.RAMAKRISHAN PILLAI, KULANGARA VEEDU, KILIMANOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM R3 BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:31059 OF 2009 B ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner and the third respondent were granted regular permits by the first respondent at a meeting held on 11.6.2009. The petitioner had applied for permit one year earlier but her application had been rejected. Thereupon she had filed appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which allowed her appeal and directed the first respondent to grant the permit. According to the petitioner the third respondent had submitted his application only just before the meeting. It is alleged that he had offered an old model vehicle and when the second respondent placed the matter for consideration before the first respondent, the third respondent filed a revision petition. As per orders in the revision the records were called for and subsequently, the revision was allowed. According to the petitioner, she has produced a brand new vehicle on 27.10.2009. But, she was told that the timings of the third respondent would be settled first. Thereupon she filed Exts.P6 and P7 representations for the settlement of her timings before settlement of the third respondent's timings. Thereafter, WPC 31059/2009 2 the petitioner has approached this Court. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner being prior in point of time had to be considered before considering the application of the petitioner. 2. The counsel for the third respondent prays that both the applications may be considered together. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that both the applications could be considered in the same timing conference but one after the other. 3. It cannot be disputed that the application that is prior in point of time would have to be considered first. Therefore, the second respondent has to consider the claims of both the petitioner and the third respondent at the same timing conference but one after the other, giving precedence to the prior applicant. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to settle the timings of the petitioner as well as the third respondent at the same timing conference, considering their applications one after the other depending on the dates of their applications. The above shall be WPC 31059/2009 3 done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 31059/2009 4 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: