IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22764 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.HUSSAIN, S/O.SHARIEF, PARAMMAL HOUSE, P.O.KADAMBODE, PANTHALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, PARATHODI HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM.P.O, MANJERI. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22764 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent. 2. Exts. P1 and P3 are the proceedings of the RTA, Malappuram granting permits to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. These permits are granted on the same date as item No.15 and 25 respectively and the route in question are also substantially same. Subsequently complaining of delay in the settlement of timings, both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed Writ Petitions before this court and those writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 judgments dated 6/3/2008 and 14/3/2008 respectively directing that following the priority, timing should be settled for both. 3. Complaining that priority has been overlooked, the 2nd respondent filed a contempt of court case as COC No.1022/08. In view of this, according to the petitioner, his timing is sought to be settled in the timing conference now scheduled to 30th of July, 2008. Petitioner complains that by reason of the filing of the contempt of court case alone, there is absolutely no justification for overlooking his priority. WPC 22764/08 :2 : 4. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the 2nd respondent, who has filed COC No.1022/08. 5. Going by the records, it is seen that though permits were granted on the same date, petitioner was granted it as item No.15 and the 2nd respondent was granted it as item No.25. In both cases, priority was ordered to be followed. If that be so, both the timing conference should have been convened at least on the same date and there is absolutely no justification to overlook the priority of the petitioner for the only reason that the 2nd respondent has filed a contempt of court case. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall convene timing conference and settle the timings of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent at least on the same date, be it on 30th of July or any other date ensuring that the petitioner's priority is not overlooked. Petitioner and 2nd respondent shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp