IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16714 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O KUNJU MOHAMMED HAJI, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, VANGARA P.O.,MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SMT.K.K.RAZIA SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 28.3.2008 IN I.A.NO.4164/08 IN W.P.(C) 21305/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE DT. 22.4.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE vkm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16714 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in the writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for revision of timings for getting the vacant timings of stage carriage KRM 4239. Initially his complaint was that due to the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 21305/07 his request was not considered. Thereupon, I.A. No. 4164/07 was filed and considering that application this Court passed Ext. P1 order clarifying that the pendency of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the Secretary considering the petitioner's application for revision of timings with notice to all concerned. It is contended that in pursuance to Ext. P1, though his request was boarded for consideration in the timing conference held in pursuance to Ext. P2, the orders on his application are still not passed. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed praying that the respondent may be directed to pass orders on his application for W.P.(C) No. 16714 OF 2008 -2- revision of timings. 2. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that in Malappuram, respondents are following priority system in the matter of consideration of all applications including for revision of timings. 3. If an application has been filed by the petitioner seeking revision of his timings, it is incumbent on the part of the 2nd respondent to consider such application and pass orders thereon. Since the respondents are following a priority system in the matter of consideration of applications it will not be justified for this Court to pass an order directing to give any overriding priority to such an application alone. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the application made by the petitioner for revision of his timings shall be considered by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and in the matter of priority. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-