IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21424 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BYJU JOSEPH, PARAKKAL HOUSE 6TH MILE, PATIKKAD P.O.,THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE VALANCHERY BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21424 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was operating on the route Palakkad-Guruvayur via Cherplassery as LSOS. Though Ext.P2 was issued revising the timing, that was never implemented. But, according to him, second respondent is insisting that the petitioner should operate on a revised timing, though Ext.P2 timing was never implemented. It is complaining this and seeking appropriate orders to the second respondent that he has filed Ext.P3 before the first respondent. However, orders on Ext.P3 have not been passed and thereupon this writ petition was preferred. 2. Learned Govt. Pleader confirmed the receipt of Ext.P3. If, as a matter of fact, Ext.P3 has been received by the first respondent as above, it needs to be considered on an emergent basis. 3. In view of this, writ petition is disposed of directing that on production of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent shall take action as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks thereafter. Needless to say that while orders are passed, WPC21424/08 2 reference will also be made to the decision reported in Sebastian v. State of Kerala {2005(3) KLT 930}. In the meantime, it is directed that status quo as on today will be maintained. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jj