IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33062 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.M.SATHYAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KALLIYATH HOUSE, P.O.PERINCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.M.VENKATESH KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33062 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-09/K3399. On the strength of a regular permit he is operating service on the route Chenam - Ayyanthole. He has been operating with the set of timings granted as per Ext.P1. Later, he has submitted an application for revision of timings. Aggrieved by the rejection of the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition as per M.V.A.R.P No. 342/2009. The said revision petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. As per the same, the impugned order was set aside and the second respondent therein was directed to consider the request of the petitioner for revision of timings in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.6.2009. Ext.P3 is the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) NO.16977 of 2009. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation requesting the second respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P6 WPC.33062/2010 : 2 : judgment in terms of Ext.P3. It is the delay in the matter of disposal of the consideration of the request in terms of Ext.P6 judgment that constrained the petitioner to file this writ petition I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, upon instruction, submitted that Ext.P7 representation would be considered strictly in terms of Ext.P6 judgment. This is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to revise the timings in accordance with Ext.P6 judgment as requested vide Ext.P7 representation expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and also other operators on the route. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge