IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 21ST BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 6900 of 2007(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.SUHARA, W/O. KUNHIMON, KADAKOTT HOUSE, PARAMBILANGADI, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMINE PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.6900/2007 PETITIONER's EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 10.1.2007 /TRUE COPY/ cl ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)NO.6900 OF 2007-U ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007. JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for revision of timings of the petitioner's stage carriage. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent justifying their refusal to consider the application. According to them, there is no reason for the revision of timings. It may be true that the circumstances do not justify revision of timings, but that does not mean that the respondents need not consider the request made for revision of the petitioner's timings. So that, if an order adverse to her is passed, the petitioner can pursue the remedies that are available to her. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. cl W.P.(C).NO. 2 W.P.(C).NO. 3