IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23129 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM, SHORNUR. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD SOUTH, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 23129 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Palakkad-Pattambi as ordinary limited stop service. The service is now operated by stage carriage KL-18 8686. Petitioner has sought for renewal of regular permit which has expired. He is now operating with temporary permit , as evidenced by Ext. P3. Ext.P2 is the time schedule in relation to the service operated by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was summoned by the 2nd respondent on 10.8.2009 and asked to produce the certified copy of the approved time schedule. Thereupon he produced Ext.P2. He was then told that there has been a general revision of timings of all services operating as ordinary limited stop services in 2003. The said general revision of timings in relation to ordinary limited stop service was considered by this Court in W.P (C) No.19392/2003 and the Division Bench of this Court had by the judgment in Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala W.P ( C) No. 23129 of 2009 2 [2005(3) KLT 930] held that Circular 3/97 need not be enforced. Government was directed to take further steps, after calling for requisite materials, to see that there is parity of running time amongst the ordinary limited stop services. Petitioner submits that therefore general revision of timings stated to have been effected in 2003, as now contended by the respondents, should not be taken as a reason to require the petitioner to operate as per timings other than what has been settled as per Ext.P2. These objections highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P5 shall be looked into by the 1st respondent and appropriate orders passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo prevailing as on date shall continue till orders are passed on Ext.P5 and thereafter the petitioner shall abide by the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 23129 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 23129 of 2009 4