IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19441 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.SUBASH, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 2. SMT.LIZZY RAJAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, 11 TH MILE, CHITHIRAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.19441 OF 2010 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM NO.7 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO SC KL-6 C 4539 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.6.2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.6.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19441 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-6 D 8001, on the route Thodupuzha-Panickamkudy as a limited stop ordinary service on the strength of a regular permit. The time schedule in relation to the petitioner's stage carriage was fixed on 24.10.2008, when the permit was initially granted. The second respondent is another stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-6 E 1414, on the route Chemmannar-Thodupuzha. The petitioner was not aggrieved by the time schedule initially proposed by the second respondent. Later, in the timing conference held on 18.6.2010, drastic changes were effected in the proposal as a result of which there is clash of timings of the service operated by the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner has aggrieved thereby submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 18.6.2010 before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki requesting him to revise the timings in respect of the second respondent's stage carriage. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 petition and pass W.P.(C) No.19441 of 2010 2 orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The second respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 7.11.2010 wherein it is stated that the second respondent has also submitted Ext.R2(a) petition dated 28.9.2010 before the first respondent seeking revision of the time schedule and that she has no objection to the first respondent considering both the applications, viz., the application filed by the petitioner and the application filed by the second respondent for revision of the time schedule. In view of the stand taken by both sides, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 petition submitted by the petitioner and Ext.R2(a) petition submitted by the second respondent for revision of timings. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 petition and by the second respondent in Ext.R2(a) petition for revision of the time schedule and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the first respondent shall issue notice to and hear the petitioner, the second W.P.(C) No.19441 of 2010 3 respondent and other stage carriage operators, if any, operating on the routes/sectors thereof, before passing orders on the said applications. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.