IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4328 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.PRATHEESH,S/O. PRAKASAN KOOTHAPPPILLY HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 4328/2008 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUSING TIMINGS TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE DT. 27/3/2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT ERNAKULAM IN MVARP NO. 117/2007 DT. 22/09/07. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE STAT ERNAKULAM IN MVARP NO. 195/07 DT. 22/09/07. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROPOSED TIMING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DT. 22/11/2007 AND SIGNED ON 09/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4328 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 27, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 the respondent had settled the timings of the petitioner. That timing was set aside by Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal. The matter was remanded to the respondent for re- settling the timings after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Accordingly Ext.P5 order has been issued by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P5 it is stated that due to strong objection from the existing operators, the request cannot be granted and hence it was declined. 2. As can be seen from the second paragraph of Ext.P2, the Tribunal appears to have already accepted the plea of the petitioner that it was impractical and irrational to follow Ext.P1 timing. It is on that basis the matter was set aside and the respondent was directed to reconsider the issue. 3. In my view, the respondent is bound to re-settle the timing. This has not been done for the only reason that there was WP(C) 4328/08 Page numbers strong objection. In my view, Ext.P5 does not reflect proper exercise of power and therefore it requires to be set aside. I do so. The respondent is directed to re-settle the timings as directed by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-