IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2137 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.C.KUNHIMOHAMMED,S/O.MOOSANKUTTY, PICHAN HOUSE, VADAKKEMANNA, P.O.KODUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.A.INEES. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.2137 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had applied for the grant of a permit as early as in 2002. But, the application was rejected. The petitioner challenged it before STAT in MVAA 138/04, which was allowed and permit was granted on 14.11.2008 by Ext.P1 order. However, the timings that were settled for the petitioner were held to be unfair and the timings were set aside by the STAT as per Ext.P8 order. The respondent was also directed to settle the timings of the petitioner in a fair manner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the STAT. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the time limit set by the STAT has already expired, the timings of the petitioner have still not been settled. By Ext.P10, the respondent has posted another operator's timing conference on 9.2.2010, though he was granted a permit only on 22.7.2009, much later than the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner's timing conference is scheduled to be held only on 23.2.2010. Wpc 2137/2010 2 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the timing conference has been so scheduled, only to grant favourable timings to the operator whose timing conference has been posted on 9.2.2010. In the event of the other operator being given a better timing, the petitioner would be put to considerable disadvantage. Therefore, he prays for a direction to consider his application and to settle his timings before settling the timings of the other operator. He also points out that he has been trying to get a permit and to operate his services from 2002 onwards. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Since the petitioner has been granted a permit on 14.11.2008, much earlier to the operator whose Stage Carriage is No.KL 10/T 6022, the petitioner is justified in contending that his timing has to be settled before the settlement of the timing of the other operator. I also take note of the previous proceedings that the petitioner had to challenge before this court as well as the STAT. In the context of the previous proceedings, the petitioner is also justified in contending that the scheduling of his timing conference at a later date is vitiated by malafides. Anyhow, the Wpc 2137/2010 3 petitioner's case being older in point of time, requires to be considered before an application, later in point of time, is considered. The learned Government Pleader submits that the timing conference scheduled for 9.2.2010 is not likely to take place and would be postponed to another date. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and settle the timings of the petitioner before settling and finalising the timings of the operator with Stage Carriage No.KL 10 T 6022. The above shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk