IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36540 of 2009(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.L. JOHNSON, PADAMADAN HOUSE, UDAYANAGAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. SRI.SAMEER K.T., KARUVANTHODI HOUSE, MEENADATHUR P.O., TANALUR, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED HASHIM. R4 BY ADV. MR.G.PRABHAKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 36540/2009-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TIME PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20/08/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 23728/2009 DATED 19/08/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13/06/2001. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN MVARP NO.242/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.242/2009 DATED 12/11/2009. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 294/2008 DATED 25/03/2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.113/2009 DATED 15/09/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 36540 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the revision of timings of the fourth respondent's service and the dismissal of the statutory revision filed by him before the STAT as MVARPNo.242 of 2009. According to the petitioner, though the matter was posted for production of records, the revision petition was dismissed without the records being produced. 2. The petitioner has requested for a revision of timings with respect to the service of the fourth respondent and has objected to one particular time slot, from Edappal to Kozhikode. The counsel for the fourth respondent submits that he has no objection to the request of the petitioner for revision of timings with respect to the said time slot being reconsidered by the third respondent, though the request for such purpose has already been rejected and the rejection confirmed by the STAT. 3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing Wpc 36540/09 2 the third respondent to consider the request for revision of timings of the fourth respondent submitted by the petitioner with respect to the time slot referred to above, untrammelled by the observations of the STAT or those in the earlier order rejecting his application. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing all the interested persons. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk