IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19095 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAMBI, PONDIYATH HOUSE EROOR SOUTH, TRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUNNY ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL PRIYADARSHINI, VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.A.INEES FOR R2 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18952 OF 2009,THE COURT ON 10/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.19095 &18952/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The order challenged in these writ petitions are common. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).19095/2009 for the sake of convenience. 2. Petitioner is an existing operator, operating on the route Kaipuzhamuttu – Chottanikkara. Timings were settled as per Ext.P1. It may be noted herein that the 2nd respondent herein is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). 18952/2009. The permit applied for by him on the route Cherthala – Muvattupuzha was granted subject to settlement of timings. Timings were issued to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, there is a common sector in the petitioner's service and the 2nd respondent's service over a distance of 12 Kms. Accordingly, petitioner had filed an objection before the 1st respondent against the timings suggested by the 2nd respondent. Objections were not accepted. Moreover, the W.P.(C)s.19095 &18952/09 2 timings settled as per Ext.P2 was not accepted by the 2nd respondent also. Both of them preferred revisions before the appellate Tribunal. Revisions were dismissed as per Ext.P5 order which has been challenged in both the writ petitions. 3. I heard Mr.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).19095/2009, Mr.A.Inees, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).18952/2009 and the learned senior Government Pleader. 4. It seems that the timings settled in relation to the service of the petitioner in W.P.(C).18952/2009 has not been accepted by either the operator or the objector. Learned Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that other operators participated in the said timing conference, that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the settlement of timings. 5. I am in agreement with the submission made by the W.P.(C)s.19095 &18952/09 3 learned counsel for the petitioners that the objections on merits also ought to be considered by the Tribunal when both the operators have challenged the settlement of timings. 6. Accordingly, order of Tribunal (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C). 19095/2009 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).18952/2009) is set aside. The revisions filed by the respective petitioners shall be disposed of afresh, after calling for the records from the lower authority and after hearing them, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs