IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1594 of 2009(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MOHAMMED MANZOOR.P., PARULA HOUSE, PANG .PO., KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR..I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM 3. SECRETARY, RTA, MALAPPURAM. 4. ELIYAMMA JOSEPH, VATTACHIRA HOUSE ATHIRA, PALACHODE PO., MALAPPURAM. BY SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1594 /2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11/01/2001. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7/03/2008. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN MVARP NO.155/2008 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 155/2008 DATED 30/08/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1594 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P2 and P4. 2. Exhibit P2 is the proceedings of the second respondent, revising timings of the 4th respondent, consequent on the variation of permit that was granted as per Exhibit P1. Petitioner contends that consequent to the revision of timings thus granted, 1 hour 30 minutes time gap that he had got reduced to 30 minutes. 3. +Aggrieved by Exhibit P2, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3, Revision before the Tribunal. It was numbered as M.V.A.R.P No.155 of 2008. Exhibit P4 order, dismissing the revision show that though the 4th respondent had entered appearance, she did not file any objection and despite that the Tribunal dismissed the revision. In this Court also, though notice has been served on 4th respondent, there is no appearance on her behalf. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his main grievance is regarding the reduction of timing gap as mentioned above. He pleads that even if revision of timings is necessary, it W.P.(C) No.1594 /2009 2 has to be done in a more equitable manner. 5. However, a reading of Exhibit P4 shows that the Tribunal has not properly considered that grievance and on the other hand rejected the revision on technical grounds. For that reason Exhibits P2 and P4 will stand set aside. 6. However, having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent and the petitioner are operating on the strength of the timings fixed as per Exhibit P2, I direct that status quo as on date will be maintained for a further period of eight weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the timings given to the 4th respondent as per Exhibit P2 with notice to petitioner and others and pass fresh orders. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm