IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33401 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.D. JOSE, S/O. DEVASSY, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, CHITTILAPPALLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. M.K. KESAVAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, MARAKATH HOUSE, P.O. PERAKAM, VIA CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 4. SRI.P.K. BABURAJAN, S/O. KUTTAPPU, PANDIRIKKAL HOUSE, VINOD MOTOR SERVICE, P.O. PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33401/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner a regular stage carriage operator sought for revision of his own timings and the same was accepted by the RTA as evidenced by Ext.P1, after convening a timing conference. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed Exts.P2 and P3 revisions before the STAT. Petitioner opposed the same and filed Exts.P4 and P5 counter affidavit. Objection taken by the petitioner before the STAT was essentially to the effect that a timing conference was not convened. There was no notice to the objectors also. STAT proceeded to observe that the records do not show that the timing conference was actually convened and the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. STAT therefore, allowed the revision by directing the RTA to convene a timing conference and to re-settle the disputed timings after giving an opportunity to all concerned of being heard in the matter. It is this order, Ext.P6, which has been challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).33401/2008 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Prabhakaran and learned Government Pleader, Mr.P.N.Santhosh. 3. Mr.Prabhakaran submits that Ext.P3 will show that the timing conference is actually convened. But I take note of the subsequent finding of the STAT, rendered after the perusal of the affidavit, that a timing conference was not convened and for that matter objectors were not heard. Had it been a matter where STAT proceeded to allow the revision on merits, I would have definitely considered the contentions of the petitioner on merits. But Ext.P6 is only an order of remand and ultimately it does not offer any scope for interference with the order as such under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any reason to take a different view from the finding arrived at by the STAT that the facts do not reveal that the objectors were heard in the timing conference. W.P.(C).33401/2008 3 4. In the result, while declining to interfere with Ext.P6, I make it clear that the RTA, Thrissur, shall pass fresh orders in the matter of revising the timings as sought for by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by convening a timing conference with notice to the objectors and by considering objections of the aggrieved persons. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs