IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1964 of 2011(I) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30881/2011 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ BASKARAN.K., S/O.KRISHNAN, KILIVAYIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGALLUR, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. PIN-676 505. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 1964 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Heard both the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we note that the learned Judge was under the impression that Ext. P1 is a representation being aggrieved by a timing conference referred to in Ext.P1. As a matter of fact, the stand of the appellant seems to be that in view of the changed circumstances, because of the timing conference of which the appellant is not at all aggrieved as stated before us, the appellant is only asking for revision of his own timing allotting the vacant timing of the surrendered permit on the route Kottakkal- Kozhikode, pertaining to the bus bearing No.KL-06-5333 The request of the appellant is to consider allotment of timing given to the surrendered permit so that he can operate his bus on the W.A.No. 1964 OF 2011 2 route between Kottakkal and Kozhikode. This is nothing to do with the timing conference already held as referred to in Ext. P1. This is only a representation of the appellant seeking allotment of timing on a particular route which is vacant now. 3. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondent authority should consider the representation(Ext.P1) and take a decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as to the other interested parties, if any, on the said route. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, directing the respondent to consider Ext. P1 representation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ appeal is disposed of. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk