IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3022 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.KOMALAM, AGED 50, MUTHARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.ANCHERRY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. 2. V.NANDANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PIRALATH HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, KODANNUR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3022 OF 2009 (I) ==================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has sought revision of timings and the proposal made is to allot the petitioner's timing. It is stated that the timing conference is now pre-poned to be held on 30/1/2009. According to the petitioner, coming to know that the proposal made is to allot his own timings, petitioner has filed Ext.P3 before the 1st respondent objecting to the proposal made by the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, all that the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 also at the time when the proposal made by the 2nd respondent is taken up for consideration. 2. Having regard to the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 also if the same has been received and pending, when the proposal of the 2nd respondent for revision of his timings is taken up for consideration. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp