IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22456 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- MVARP.356/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.A. ABDULLA, SADIUE MANZIL, KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,VATAKARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 22456 OF 2010 F ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a regular stage carriage permit holder conducting services on the route Kuttikkattoor-Kozhikode-Kannur with stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-11/Y 8879 with a set of timings that were issued on 19/1/2000. According to the petitioner, since the settlement of his timings a number of new services have been introduced on the route, reducing the time gap with which he had been conducting his services. Other operators have surrendered their permits leading to the existence of vacant timings also. Therefore the petitioner requested for the revision of his timings. Since his request was not considered the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court and this Court directed the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks therefrom. Pursuant to the said judgment, the respondent considered the request of the petitioner and rejected the same. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal {'STAT' for short) by filing a revision against the same. The petitioner has obtained favourable orders from the STAT directing the respondent to consider the WPC 22456/2010 2 feasibility of allotting the timings sought for by him. Though a timing conference was promised to be convened, the petitioner complains that no action has been taken for convening the same and that the order of the STAT has still not been implemented. Consequently the petitioner is put to needless hardships and trouble. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions for an early disposal of his application. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader who has no objection to the matter being expedited. 2. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to implement the directions of the STAT, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 22456/2010 3