IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25168 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.ABBAS, S/O KUNHALAN, MOOLATH HOUSE, CHEMBAKUTH, P.O.EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM. 2. P.ABDUL AZEEZ, PUTHUKULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. N.UNNIKRISHNAN, NELLIKATT HOUSE, KOOTTAMPARA, AMARAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25168/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE 1ST PETITIONER'S SERVICE DT.18.3.1998. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.2006 ISSUING TIMINGS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.12.7.06 ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE 2ND PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVARP NO.579/06 DT.12.3.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVARP NO.527/06 DT.7.3.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25168 OF 2007 U ==================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T While the petitioners herein are operating on the strength of timings as per Exts. P1 and P3, Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the Secretary fixing the timing of the 2nd respondent. Against Ext.P2, petitioners herein filed separate revision petitions before the Tribunal as MVARP 579/06 and 527/06. These revision petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal as per Exts. P4 and P5. A reading of Exts. P4 and P5 shows that the Tribunal was satisfied that the interference with Ext.P2 was not called for. However complaint of the petitioners is that instead of directing the Secretary, RTA to convene the timing conference and settle the timings afresh, Tribunal took it upon itself the task of fixing the timings. Though the counsel for the 2nd respondent has a case that the order Exts. P4 and P5 have been rendered on consent of the parties, the same is not seen reflected in the orders. 2. In my view, once Tribunal had found that the matter need called for interference, Tribunal should have left it to the Secretary to convene the timing conference with notice to all affected parties and settle WPC 25168/07 :2 : the timings afresh. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal being erroneous Exts. P4 and P5, timings have been allotted by the Tribunal itself. The said orders will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent for convening the timing conference and fixing the timings of the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that he is plying on the strength of the timing as per Exts. P4 and P5. 3. Taking note of the above, I direct that until timing is settled afresh, the status quo as on date will be maintained between the parties. It is directed that the timing conference shall be scheduled and the timing fixed as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp