IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7267 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NOUSHAD K., KOOLIYODAN HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. P.UMMER, S/O.ALAVI, POOZHIKUTH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. M.MOHAMMED RASHEED, S/O.AYAMU, ARAYILATH HOUSE, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 26/03/2009 IN I.A.NO.4213/09) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A.ASIF R2 BY ADV. MR.SAJU J.VALLYARA ADDL.R3 BY ADV.MR. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7267/2009 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM IN MVARP NO.12/2008 DTD. 16/02/2008. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.14738/2008 DTD. 27/06/2008. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.22/11/2008. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE REGARDING THE TIMING CONFERENCE FIXED TO 4/12/2008. P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.4/12/2008. P6: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS MVARP.NO.446/2008 DTD. 16/12/2008. P7: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN MVARP.NO.446/2008 DTD. 20/01/2009. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T.. ERNAKULAM IN MVARP.NO. 446/2008 DTD. 27/02/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE S.T.A.T. IN MVARP.NO.446/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No.7267 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Since after the writ petition was argued for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gopinathan Nair and the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri. Saju have on instruction agreed to a suggestion made by the court, I will refer only to the very essential facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner operates a stage carriage service on the route Pookkottumpadam-Kozhikode. The timing in relation to the same was settled eight years ago. It contemplates the arrival of service at Kozhikode at 4.58 pm, and departure at7.54 pm. after a halt of more than two hours. Petitioner requested for advancing the departure time from Kozhikode to 6.22 pm. The request was rejected by the first respondent. But by Ext. P1 order, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the affected WPC.No.7267 OF 2009 : 2 : persons. The order was directed to be implemented by this court vide Ext.P2 judgment. Timing Conference accordingly was convened on 22.11.2008. Allotment of departure time at 6.22pm. was discussed. It seems that the 3rd respondent permit holder operating between Kozhikode and Manjeri stated that he operated the service, with departure from Kozhikode at 6.20pm. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent produced a forged time sheet showing his departure as 6.20 pm. where as it was actually 6.18pm. In the circumstances the first respondent again declined to consider the petitioner's request for allotting departure time from Kozhikode at 6.22pm. 3. Coming to know that the time sheet submitted by the 3rd respondent is a forged one, the petitioner produced a certified copy of the timings relating to the 3rd respondent service. . A fresh timing conference was convened on 4.12.2008 after notice to respondents two and three as well. After a detailed discussion, as per Ext.P5 petitioner was WPC.No.7267 OF 2009 : 3 : alloted a departure time of 6.21 pm. Departure time of the second respondent remained at 6.25pm. The second respondent challenged Ext. P5 in Ext.P6 revision before the tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revision as per Ext.P8, set aside Ext.P5 and directed restoration of Ext.P3. Ext.P8 has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. There has been an order of stay passed by this court and the petitioner and the second respondent now operate in accordance with the timings settled as per Ext.P5. 5. 3rd respondent has not appeared in spite of notice. The 3rd respondent operates the service between Kozhikode and Manjery and it leaves kozhikode at 6.18pm. Now as per Ext P5, the petitioners departure time has been fixed at 6.21pm. and that of the second respondent at 6.25pm. 6. After hearing the counsel for sometime, I felt that the grievance of the second respondent was essentially because the petitioner has been alloted a departure timing 4 minutes ahead of it. Counsel for petitioner and the counsel WPC.No.7267 OF 2009 : 4 : for the second respondent are now agreed that the petitioner and second respondent are willing to exchange the timings given to them. Consequently the petitioner shall be alloted a departure time of 6.25pm.and the 2nd respondent shall be allotted the departure time of 6.21pm. 7. I am of the view that this shall be treated as an order of the court and accordingly taking note of the above, the first respondent shall pass proceedings revising Ext.P5 to the extent indicated above. Accordingly the petitioner shall be permitted to depart Kozhikode at 6.25pm. and the second respondent should be permitted to depart from Kozhikode at 6.21pm.Ext. P8 will stand quashed and Ext.P5 stands modified accordingly. Writ petition is disposed as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma