IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19746 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.BHARGAVAN PILLAI, KANNAMBALATH HOUSE, MANNARKKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. N.C.THOMAS, NARIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PALLICKATHODE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI. I. DINESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19746 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Ettumannoor-Puthuppally via Ayarkunnam. The second respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12911 of 2010 complaining that the timings of one cut trip between Ettumanoor and Pallickathode had not been settled in the timing conference held on 16.3.2010. Therefore, he sought appropriate directions for the settlement of his timings on the said cut trip. As per Ext.P4 judgment dated 17.5.2010, the first respondent was directed to consider the request of the second respondent and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is submitted that a timing conference has been scheduled on 30.6.2010. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the cut trip of the second respondent is actually from Pallickathode to Ayarkunnam and not from Pallickathodu to Ettumanoor as stated in Ext.P4 judgment. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that under the guise of settling the timings of the cut trip operated by the second respondent, his entire timings would be re-settled. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 objections. He prays that Ext.P5 may also be considered by wpc No.19746/2010 2 the first respondent at the timing conference that is scheduled to be conducted on 30.6.2010. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, Adv.I.Dinesh Menon who appears for the second respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader. 4. I do not think there is any scope for doubt with regard to the terms of the directions in Ext.P4. What has been directed to be considered and settled is only the timings in respect of one cut trip that is operated by the second respondent, whether it is from Pallickathode to Ettumanoor or from Ayarkunnam to Ettumannoor. Anyhow, since the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 objections, there is no harm in the same also being directed to be considered at the timing conference that is scheduled to be held on 30/6/2010. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner set out in Ext.P5 also while settling the timings of the second respondent in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css