IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 698 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.S.SOMARAJ,AGED 30,MANAGING PARTNER M/S.JANAVEDI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA,NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.698/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE EXISTING TIME SCHEDULE OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE IN RESPECT OF KL-07/BA.4923. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FOR THE VARIATION CONTAINING THE PROPOSED TIMINGS DTD. 02/04/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AGENDA CONTAINING THE PROPOSED TIMINGS IN ITEM NO. 32 NO. C5/44847/07/E. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 19/04/2007 GRANTING VARIATION. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 14/09/2007 CONTAINING THE TIMINGS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF KL-7/AP.3781. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS MVARP NO. 460/07 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 01/10/07. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP. NO. 460/07 DTD. 03/12/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 698 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 27, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is the timing that was granted to the petitioner. Petitioner sought variation and that was considered by the RTA by Ext.P3 agenda. By Ext.P4 the variation was granted subject to settlement of timings and Ext.P5 is the varied permit that was issued with a set of timings. The main objection against Ext.P5 is regarding the advancement of the departure time from 2.09 p.m. to 12.39 p.m. 2. Petitioner submits that against this settlement of timing, he filed Ext.P7 revision before the Tribunal. In ground G of the revision, petitioner has pointed out the inconvenience caused and particularly the clash between his service and two other stage carriages bearing registration Nos. KL 42/1838 and KL7/AP 3781. It is seen that the revision was considered by the Tribunal and rejected by Ext.P8 upholding the settlement of timings in Ext.P5. A WP(C) 698/08 Page numbers reading of Ext.P8 shows that the Tribunal has not adverted to the clash of timings pointed out by the petitioner in Ext.P7. In my view the Tribunal ought to have adverted to this contention of the petitioner. 3. Since the primary authority also did not have occasion to consider this aspect, I direct that the matter may be considered by the 2nd respondent. In order to enable the primary authority to consider this issue, I quash Ext.P7 to the extent the departure time at 2.09 p.m. has been advanced to 12.39 p.m. and I direct that the petitioner may move an appropriate application to the 2nd respondent pointing out the aforesaid aspect and particularly the clash of timings, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall take up the mater and consider the same with notice to the petitioner and to those affected and pass revised orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-