IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 23883 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.KHADEEJA, W/O.V.P.ABOOBACKER, VEE PEE HOUSE, P.O.ERANHIKKODE, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. P.ABDUL AZEEZ, PUDUKKOTTI HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R3. N.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNA MENON, NELLIKAT HOUSE, KOOTTAMPARA P.O, AMARAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 VIDE ORDER IN IA NO.1573/08 DATED 4/2/2008) BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23883/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S SERVICE ISSUEDON 19.7.1994. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3.8.02 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.03. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA DATED 29.5.07. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.06. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONFILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 25.9.06. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SHOWING THE FIXATION OF TIMING MADE AFTER CONVENING A TIMING CONFERENCE ON 10.10.2006. EXHIBITS OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2006. EXHIBITS OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT BEFOR THE SECRETARY, RTA, MALAPPURAM DATED 25.9.06. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO. 23883 OF 2007 R ============================ Dated this the 4 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Contending that there are certain mistakes in Ext.P5 consolidated timings issued to the stage carriage owned by the petitioner, petitioner filed Ext.P6. Thereupon the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P7, taking note of Ext.P6 and inviting objections from all interested persons. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that matter did not proceed thereafter and he seeks an order to expedite final orders on Ext.P7. 2. The 2 nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and contends that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved, the remedy was to file revision against Ext.P5. 2 nd respondent also contends that once timing has been finalised and issued by the 1 st respondent, 1 st respondent has no power to review the said order or even correct a mistake. WPC 23883/07 :2 : 3. Since the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P7 taking into account Ext.P6 filed by the petitioner and as final orders have not been passed, I do not wish to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the position canvassed either by the petitioner or by the 2 nd respondent. Now that Ext.P7 notice has been issued and interested parties have already filed their objections, it is only proper that the 1 st respondent finalises the matter with notice to those who have filed their objections. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1 st respondent shall issue notice to those who have filed objections to Ext.P7, hear the matter and pass final orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. I clarify that while final orders are passed on Ext.P7, 1 st respondent shall advert to all the contentions raised including the question of maintainability of the very request made by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp