IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13537 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.BEERAN, PALLITHAZHELAM, KURUVANGAD P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 2. C.K.SATHYAPRAKASH, S/O.KESAVAN, CHAKKITTUKANDIYIL HOUSE, MADAVOOR, NARIKKUNI. 3. P.P.NAZEER, PULIKKOOR PALAKKARA HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O., KOYILANDY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR - R1, ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN - R2 & R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13537/2008-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT DTD. 21/11/2006 BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF TIMINGS ISSUED BY THE R.1. BY ORDER NO. C4/5249/04 DTD. 20/11/04. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 01/01/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE R.1. DTD. 29/02/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C4/12649/07 V DTD. 19/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C4/12649/07 V DTD. 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 13537 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 18, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that in respect of the permit held by him, he was operating on the basis of certain timings that were fixed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that on his application and with notice to others, his timings were revised and Ext.P5 revised schedule was issued. Subsequently, on the representations made by respondents 2 and 3, and without notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 proceedings revoking the revision effected by Ext.P5. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the petitioner had, while obtaining Ext.P5, suppressed certain factual matters. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner shall be considered in a later timing conference. 2. The contention that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P6 should not have been issued without issuing notice to him. 3. Since the fact that the revised timing was revoked without notice to the petitioner is admitted, the action of the 1st WP(C) 13537/08 2 respondent in revising the timings without notice to the petitioner cannot be upheld. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P6 and directing that the representation said to have been made by respondents 2 and 3, shall be considered by the 1st respondent with notice to both parties viz. the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, and revised orders shall be passed taking into account their respective contentions. Though I quashed Ext.P6, since the said order is dated 17.4.2008, it is directed that until revised timing is fixed as above, the position as it obtains today, will be maintained. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-